u 


m 




©n tbis subject let tbete be light—not beat.’ 

— Rev. Lyman Abbott 


THE 




"Ah 


BY 




mumm 


fS&Ss? 


LINDON W. BATES, Jr., 

AND 

CHAS. A. MOORE, Jr. 


PRICE 

25 

CENTS 














It is the aim of the authors of 
this book to furnish an impartial 
summary of the facts concerning 
the men and issues before the 
country at the present time. 













©it tbis subject let tbere be llgbt—not beat.” 

— Rev. Lyman Abbott. 


THE 

POLITICAL 

HOROSCOPE 


3 3 > > o > ) 3 

3 3 3 3 

3 0 3 0 ) 

> •; r ) 

J 6 3)33 


3 3 3 3 3 ) ) } 

3 )%>»). 

i> * I) * * OO 

) 3 '* > 3 ) 

> ) .» 3 > 3 5 3 3 


) 3 O . ) * 

i > 

* ) 10 > V 

-> ) * * > > 

) ) 3 )) 


) 

* 


) > 3 
3 

^ * 

•3 

) 



•) ) 3 
3 

3 3 
) 

) 3 3 





BY 

LINDON W. BATES, Jr., 

AND 


CHAS. A. MOORE, Jr. 


WYNKOOP HALLENBECK CRAWFORD CO., NEW YORK. 





*1 



LIBRARY of CONGRESS 
Two Codes Received 


JUN 1G 1904 


Copyright Entry 

frUw*/*)-/ q o 4 

CLAS3N* OL XXC. No. 

S 1 0 s' 

COPY B [ 


z-C { P 





COPYRIGHT, I9O4 
BY 

LINDON W. BATES, JR. 


« • 


• • 

. • 

• 

• • * 

* 

• 

• * 

• 

♦ 

• 

• * • 


• A 




• 

A * 

r 



« 

• 

A 

• 


• • 

• 

• • » 

» 

• 

•s • • 

♦ 

• 





4 


• 







« 


* 

• 

» 

• 


• 

• 

• * • 

• 

• 


• 

• • • 

<1 t 

4 * 

• 

» 

A 





♦ * • 

















MEN OF THE HOUR 


GROVER CLEVELAND. 

Mr. Cleveland was born on March 18, 1837, at Caldwell, 
N. J. His father, a clergyman, moved with the family to Buffalo, 
N. Y., when Mr. Cleveland was still a young boy, and it was 
here that the future President grew up and entered the political 
arena. He studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1859, and 
four years later was elected to his first office, that of Assistant 
District Attorney of Erie County, a post which he held until 
1866. Elected Mayor of Buffalo in 1881, he established, in an 
able and upright administration, a reputation for sincerity of 
purpose and a bulldog courage which his bitterest enemies have 
not since questioned. Largely on his good record in this post he 
was, in 1882, nominated for Governor of New York State, which 
he carried by the remarkable majority of 200,000. 

Two years later he was nominated for President upon the 
Democratic ticket in opposition to James G. Blaine, Republican. 
The campaign was one of the hottest in American history. Mr. 
Cleveland’s victory was largely due to two mistakes made by his 
opponent, his attending a dinner given on the eve of election 
by a number of Wall Street capitalists, “Belshazzar’s feast,” 
and letting pass uncensured a speech in which occurred the preg¬ 
nant words, “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.” The electoral votes 
of New York State, which swung over to the Democrats by little 
more than 1,000 plurality, put into the Presidential chair the first 
Democratic Executive since Buchanan. 

Although at the end of this administration Mr. Cleveland had 
come to be highly regarded for uprightness and conservative in¬ 
dependence of action, he suffered a serious defeat in 1888. The 
failure of his second campaign was directly due to his message 
of 1887, the last one before his campaign of re-election, in 
which, though strongly advised against it, Mr. Cleveland un¬ 
equivocally announced himself as a supporter of tariff reduc¬ 
tion and a modification of all Federal taxation. The desertion of 


3 



the Democratic machine was, however, largely responsible. ihe 
New York City delegation in the Democratic Convention en¬ 
tered a unanimous protest, couched in the strongest language, 
against Cleveland’s renomination. Though their opposition was 
not sufficient to defeat him in the Convention, the failure of the 
machine to support him in the elections crippled him seriously. 
The desertion of the New York organization was particularly 
apparent, since the Democratic candidate for Governor polled 
33,000 more votes than Mr. Cleveland at the same election. 

After four years of Republican administration, Mr. Cleve¬ 
land was again nominated to run for President upon the Demo¬ 
cratic ticket. People had had the opportunity to reconsider his 
former course in office, and voiced their opinion of the Ex-Presi¬ 
dent b3 r again electing him to the Presidency against his formerly 
successful opponent, Mr. Harrison. 

The first of his measures to come up for consideration dealt 
in the Wilson Bill with Tariff reform. But the fierce opposition 
of many Congressmen, and the flank attacks of his former man¬ 
ager, Mr. Gorman, resulted in the passage of the emasculated 
Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, which became a law without 
the President’s signature. With the election of a Republican 
House of Representatives the breach between the Executive and 
Congress widened. 

President Cleveland’s opposition to the strenuous pressure 
brought to bear in favor of free silver illustrated anew his dom¬ 
inant trait for courage, and it was due to his firmness that no 
change was made in the direction of bimetallism. In a special 
session called by him was repealed the Sherman Silver Purchase 
Act, and this drain on the reserve stoppled. This was followed 
by his sale of $262,000,000 worth of bonds to protect the gold 
reserve, which, though the subject of much hostile criticism, was 
the only measure possible by which the credit of the Government 
could be maintained in that time of business uncertainty. 

He made a stubborn fight against pensions in the face of a 
rabidly hostile Legislature. Such action was hardly politic for 
any leader, and Mr. Cleveland was by men of his own party 
accused of deliberately betraying Democracy. As a final act of 
independence, Mr. Cleveland interferred in the dangerous Chicago 
railroad strike and put an end by the intervention of Eederal 
troops to a reign of lawlessness seldom equalled in times of peace. 
Mr. Cleveland took such swift and decided action upon the im¬ 
portant Venezuela boundary dispute, there was at one time the 
possibility, if not the probability, of war between this country and 
England. 


4 


When the President retired from his second administration 
he was the most cordially hated man in America. Respect for him 
lias grown nevertheless, and to-day many Democrats are apparent¬ 
ly willing to again put him forward as their candidate, confident 
in his ability to give a safe and conservative administration. His 
definite statement that he is out of active politics is, however, un¬ 
questionably final, and his indorsement of Mr. Parker makes that 
candidate the one around whom the ex-President’s following will 
rally. Yet as the most prominent man in his party and the only 
one who has led the Democrats to a decisive victory since the 
Civil War, Mr. Cleveland’s influence is very great in the present 
campaign. 


THEODORE ROOSEVELT. 


Mr. Roosevelt is the youngest man who has ever sat in the 
Presidential chair. He was born in New York City on October 
27, 1858, and graduated from Harvard in 1880. In 1882 he was 
elected to the New York State Legislature, and two years later 
was a delegate to the National Republican Convention. Soon 
after, his health became so poor that he gave up politics and re¬ 
tired to a ranch in North Dakota. Upon his return to New York 
in 1886 he ran unsuccessfully for Mayor of the city. As he had 
taken a strong and consistent Civil Service stand throughout his 
early political career and had become known as a champion of 
Civil Service in politics, he was made in 1889 a National Civil 
Service Commissioner, in which capacity he held office until 1895. 
In that year he was appointed Police Commissioner of New York 
under a Republican reform administration, and continued to make 
a good record for courageous discharge of duties. 

In 1897, Mr. Roosevelt was appointed Assistant Secretary of 
the Navy, by President McKinley. He had held this office but a 
short time when the Spanish War broke out, whereupon he at 
once resigned his office in the Navy Department and began to or¬ 
ganize the First II. S. Volunteer Cavalry, of which regiment he 
was appointed Lieutenant-Colonel, with Dr. Leonard Wood for 
Colonel. As officer he did good work, and was promoted to the 
Colonelcy before the close of the conflict. Almost before his regi¬ 
ment was mustered out. Colonel Roosevelt was nominated for 
Governor of New York upon the Republican ticket, and his ex¬ 
cellent record both in Civil Government offices and as Colonel of 
the First Volunteer Cavalry during the then very recent war, 
helped him to a victory in his campaign. 

Before the expiration of Mr. Roosevelt’s term as Governor, 
the National Republican Convention at Philadelphia nominated 
him for Vice-President, to run as second to William McKinley on 
the National ticket. Mr. Roosevelt opposed his own candidacy 
vigorously, but was finally prevailed upon to accept the nomina¬ 
tion. His activity in the campaign of 1900 helped his party ma¬ 
terially. Upon the death of President McKinley at Buffalo, Sep¬ 
tember 4, 1901, Mr. Roosevelt took the oath of office as President 
of the United States, announcing that he intended to carry out 
on every line the policies of his predecessor. 

If a man is to be judged by his actions, the President supplies 


o 


plenty of material for judgment. In every office that lie has filled 
some positive improvement or change has marked his occupancy. 

As National Civil Service Commissioner he served four years 
under Harrison and two under Cleveland. His work in this de¬ 
partment was of the greatest value; 20,000 new names were added 
to the rolls of the Civil Service under his direction. As Police 

Commissioner of New Fork he added 2,000. police positions to the 
lists. \\ hen he entered upon the work, the spirit of reform was 
dead; when he left office, Civil Service was a real force. 

His best contribution to the welfare of the State of New 
York during his administration as Governor, was the Franchise 
Tax Law. This was proposed at his suggestion, and he sent to 
the Legislature two executive messages to hurry its passage. So 
great was the opposition of corporations in the State, that one of 
these messages was violently torn up by an excited opponent fa¬ 
voring corporate interests. The force of public opinion was with 
him, however, and he clung to the measure till it was finally 
passed. It is due almost entirely to him that the principle that 
valuable franchise privileges should not be given away for noth¬ 
ing, became recognized as fundamental law in New York State. 

As President his acts have shown characteristic energy. 
His negro appointments, that of Crum as Collector of the Port 
at Charleston, S. C., and of Mrs. Cox as postmistress of Indianola, 
Miss., have been the cause of n^uch criticism. The reception of 
Mr. Booker T. Washington was also a subject of spirited discus¬ 
sion. Another of Mr. Roosevelt’s assertive acts was the appoint¬ 
ment of the Anthracite Commission to arbitrate in the coal strike 
of 1902-1903. The occasion was the long drawn out dispute be¬ 
tween organized miners and organized employers in the Penn¬ 
sylvania Coal district. As troops were not requested by 
Governor Stone, Federal interference was unwarranted, although 
there was in the mining region much disorder, and lack of coal 
caused great hardship and business stagnation. The President, 
“acting as a private citizen,” proposed to the employers and to 
the United Mine Workers, till then unrecognized as an organiza¬ 
tion, that they submit to the arbitration of a committee to be 
appointed by the President. The decision given by this body was 
in the main favorable to the strikers, but was accepted by both 
parties. Much suffering was undoubtedly prevented by this settle¬ 
ment, but the precedent of an executive appointing extra-legal 
committees is by many regarded as dangerous in the extreme. 

The summoning of a special session of Congress to consult 
about Cuban Reciprocity, is still another of the President’s de¬ 
cisive acts. Cuba, shut off from the markets of Spain, was barred 


from our markets by the high tariff. The Reciprocity Bill, pro¬ 
posed as a measure of relief, was passed in both Houses by a 
large rpajority, and went into effect December 27. Under it, a 
twenty per cent, reduction from the Dingley schedule is given 
to Cuban sugar, and reductions as high as 40 per cent, on various 
other products of the Island. 

By Mr. Roosevelt’s influence was also instituted the suit 
against the Northern Securities Company under the Sherman 
Anti-Trust Law. The Northern Pacific and the Great Northern, 
competing roads, had acquired the Burlington. The three lines 
were controlled by the Northern Securities. The Eighth Circuit 
Court of Appeals decided that this was a combination in restraint 
of trade, and ordered the dissolution of the merger. The case 
was appealed to the Supreme Court, and has recently been 
decided, by a majority of five to four, in favor of the Government. 
Since upon this decision depends the legal status of a majority of 
the railways in the United States, the issue started by the Presi¬ 
dent is vital. 

His latest line of policy in Panama has assumed the import¬ 
ance of an issue in this campaign. It is claimed that in it the 
President violated all law, national and international, and has 
shown himself to be an “unsafe man.” Opposition to him on this 
score has been strengthened by his “constructive recess” between 
the special and regular sessions, in which he reappointed Brigadier 
General Wood as Major-General, and Mr. Crum as Collector of the 
Port of Charleston. The executive order granting the equivalent 
of a service pension by a new construction of the Pension Act of 
1900 appears to many a further example of Mr. Roosevelt’s law¬ 
lessness. His record, however, has been good and marked through¬ 
out by practical advances; it is one of things accomplished, not of 
things merely advocated. 


4 


s 


ALTON BROOKS PARKER. 

Judge Parker is one of several men important in National 
politics at the present time whose reputations have been founded 
almost entirely upon judicial and legal ability. For though he 
has always held an estimable and consistent place politically, 
Judge Parker has never until this year been a national figure. 

Nevertheless as the prospective Presidential candidate of the 
Democratic party, the fact that except as a jurist he is to all pur¬ 
poses unknown, is rather to his advantage than otherwise. In 
the minds of many thoughtful voters his good record as a Judge 
weighs more than great political reputation accompanied by a 
record of inconsistency or unwise ptaHizan actions. Judge Par¬ 
ker has never been so deeply involved in bygone issues as to feel 
obliged now to advocate them. He has kept clear of the tangle of 
New York machine politics. In brief, he is a man against whom 
can be brought no positive objections and whose very aloofness 
from active politics is likely to make him at this juncture a wel¬ 
come candidate to Democrats. 

Unconsciously, but none the less surely, the Democratic party 
is returning to some man of Grover Cleveland’s type. Mr. Cleve¬ 
land is himself now an old man and has stated definitely that he 
has permanently withdrawn from politics. Judge Parker is un¬ 
doubtedly the most available man of the conservative, confidence- 
inspiring order upon which the Democrats must fix if they expect 
to regain that solid element of the country so necessary for the 
success of the party. 

Mr. Parker is comparatively a young man, only a little past 
fifty. He was born at Cortland, N. Y., in 1852 and was educated 
at the Cortland Academy. After a course in law at the Albany 
Law School, he was admitted to the New York Bar and started 
to practice in Kingston. In 1877, he was made Surrogate of 
Ulster County, holding this office until 1885. In 1884, he was a 
delegate to the Democratic National Convention and next year 
became Chairman of the Democratic State Executive Committee. 
In the same year he was elected Judge of the New York State 
Supreme Court and in 1889 he was appointed a member of the 
Second Division of the Court of Appeals. In 1896, by a large 
majority, he was elected Judge of the Appellate Division of the 
State Supreme Court, of which he has been Chief Judge since 


9 


1898. He has therefore a long as well as a clean and com¬ 
mendable record as a Judge. 

His popularity can to some extent be measured by the fact that 
most of his judicial posts were elective offices, but as the majority 
by which he became Supreme Court Justice showed fewer Demo¬ 
cratic votes than was given the following year to the Democratic 
candidate for Governor, it is hardly fair to measure Judge Par¬ 
ker’s popularity by this majority of 61,000 the year after McKinley 
had carried the State by 268,000. The delegates of New York 
State have been instructed for him and as the general trend of 
opinion is favorable to him, it is more than likely that Judge 
Parker will be the St. Louis candidate. 


\ 


Mi 


ELIHU ROOT. 


An unemotional legal directness distinguishes Mr. Elihu 
Root and lies at the basis of all he has accomplished. His reputa¬ 
tion, until President McKinley called him to the position of 
Secretary of War from which he has recently resigned, was en¬ 
tirely legal. Like the appointment of Mr. Taft as Chairman of 
the Philippine Commission, Mr. Root’s entrance to the Cabinet 
was the recognition of marked ability solely, not the reward of a 
long series of party services. Indeed, the only public office he 
ever held before becoming Secretary of War was the United States 
District Attorneyship for Southern New York, and his sole party 
office was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the State Con¬ 
stitutional Convention in 1894. 

Ilis professional career began with a victory over Samuel 
J. Tilden in an important lawsuit before the Court of Appeals. 
This was followed by a succession of notable cases, which built 
up for him a great reputation as a corporation counsel in New 
York. While Mr. Roosevelt held office in the city and eventually 
as Governor of New York State, Mr. Root was his counsel and 
legal adviser for the many points of law that arose in connection 
with the reforms he was pushing. With the appointment to the 
position of Secretary of War in 1899 began that series of brilliant 
administrative measures which has raised so high Mr. Root’s 
reputation as a constructive statesman. 

The anomalous position of Cuba directly after the Spanish 
W ar was the first, of the problems involving our new dependencies 
which presented themselves to the nation to be grappled with. By 
Senator Teller’s resolution independence had been promised to 
Cuba, which had been occupied and was held by a mixed force 
of regulars and volunteers. Upon the War Office acting through 
Major-General Wood, during the critical period before the Gov¬ 
ernment was turned over to the Cubans, fell the direct burden of 
the necessary policing, clearing and settling, which brought Cuba, 
and especially Havana, to a state of healthfulness and good gov¬ 
ernment unknown in all her previous history. Every measure 
that went into effect had the careful consideration as well as the 
approval of the Secretary of War. He was chiefly instrumental 
in drafting the Platt amendment by which was finally instituted 
the new Cuban regime; he it was who later withdrew the troops; 


ll 


Cuba’s condition to-day is in a great measure a monument to the 
care and watchful activity of Mr. Root. 

Through the period following the Spanish War he was at 
work formulating plans for a comprehensive army reform. 
Their execution, after a long campaign of education in Congress, 
marks the greatest step forward in army organization since the 
Civil War. The first measure was a thorough overhauling of the 
personnel in the whole department. The old red tape fetters 
which hamper so much the workings of a great organization were 
ruthlessly cut away and new life was infused into the mass of 
employes. Next followed the establishment of a joint Army and 
Navy Board, composed of four men from each branch of our serv¬ 
ice. This measure does away with the friction which has long 
existed between the two services and furnishes a definite organiza¬ 
tion by which those affairs in which the Army and Navy act 
jointly may be arranged. Finally came the greatest and most 
radical change of all—the abolition of the post of General 
in Chief, which involved the shelving of General Miles, and the 
establishment of a General Staff. This measure, which is Mr. 
Root’s most far-reaching achievement, creates a technical body 
close to the executive, which has general supervision over the de¬ 
tails of Army organization, equipment and training. Its effective¬ 
ness is so well recognized that England’s army reorganization is 
following in the same lines. 

The drafting of the “Instructions” by which Civil Govern¬ 
ment was inaugurated in the Philippines, and the writing of the 
Philippine Civil Government Act, which stands as their Consti¬ 
tution, were almost entirely the work of the Secretary. 

Mr. Root’s life has been a comparatively quiet one. Born 
February 15, 1845, in Clinton, N. Y., he was educated at Hamilton 
College, in which his father was professor of mathematics. From 
March, 1883, to the middle of 1885 he was United States Attorney 
for the Southern District of New York State. He was elected 
Delegate at Large to the State Constitutional Convention in 1894, 
in which he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. On 
August 1, 1899, directly after the Spanish War, he was appointed 
Secretary of War to succeed Alger, and was reappointed March 
5, 1901. During this period he served upon the Alaska Boundary 
Committee. In August, 1903, he handed in to President Roose¬ 
velt his resignation as Secretary of War, and January 1, 1904, 
withdrew into private life. 

His retirement from the position of Secretary of War to 
resume his profession marks the exit from public life of a man 
to whose varied abilities President Roosevelt has thus testified: 


12 


“Elihu Root could take any of these Cabinet places and fill it as 
well as the man who is there now.” It is, however, stated upon 
g'ood authority that this retirement is not final, and Mr. Root has 
been much discussed as Republican candidate for Governor of 
New York. 



33 


1 




WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN. 


Since his nomination for the Presidency at the Chicago Con¬ 
vention in 1896, Mr. Bryan has been the strongest leader in the 
Democratic party. He is one of the “young men” in politics, 
being two years younger than President Roosevelt. His original 
home was Salem, Ill., where he was born in 1860. He graduated 
in 1881 from Illinois College in Jacksonville as valedictorian of 
his class. After a course in the Chicago Union College of Law he 
began general practice at Jacksonville, where he remained four 
years, leaving in 1887 to help establish the law firm of Talbot & 
Bryan in his present home of Lincoln, Neb. 

The following year his political career began. He actively 
supported the Democrats in local issues and was 'offered the nomi¬ 
nation for Lieutenant Governor, which, however, he refused. Two 
years later, in 1890, his services to his party were recognized by 
a nomination as Democratic representative in Congress. He 
made an excellent campaign and was elected by a plurality of 
6,700. During two terms in Congress Mr. Bryan established his 
reputation as an able speaker and clever debater. His speeches 
in favor of tariff reform, with which he was at that time asso¬ 
ciated, rather than with free silver, were particularly forceful. 
In 1894, he refused a third nomination for Representative and 
during the next two years, though continuing to be a power in 
Nebraska Democracy, he held no office. 

In the Chicago Convention of 1896 he was a delegate from 
Nebraska. Here was delivered the famous “Cross of Gold” speech 
advocating bimetallism, which so stirred his hearers that he was 
nominated for President. In this campaign was made the most 
thorough personal canvass that has ever been attempted. Mr. 
Bryan traveled 18,000 miles, delivering speeches at every stop, and 
though defeated by a plurality of 600,000, the vote polled by the 
Democrats was the largest in the history of the party. He re¬ 
tired from the campaign with a well-established reputation and 
with undiminished power in his party. 

During the Spanish War Mr. Bryan raised the Third 
Nebraska Volunteers and became its Colonel, but had no oppor¬ 
tunity to see active service. At the close of the war he resigned 
his commission and returned to law practice in Lincoln. 

In 1900, his personality again so swayed the Democratic 
National Convention that he was once more nominated to run 


14 


for President. He made a second vigorous campaign, but his hold 
upon his party was weakened by his continued advocacy of Free 
Sil ver, and he was badly defeated. 

Since his second reverse Mr. Bryan has been editor of a 
weekly political paper. The Commoner. Notwithstanding two 
failures in his campaigns for the Presidency, he admittedly con¬ 
trols a very important section in the Democratic party and no 
politician can afford to overlook him in the present National cam¬ 
paign. Mr. Bryan is not himself available as a candidate, but his 
position is such that he may easily become a candidate maker. 
It is generally believed that he is pulling with Mr. ITearst, to the 
end of gaining by this coalition control of the convention. To 
retain such influence after two defeats proves a man more than 
ordinarily capable as a leader and even Mr. Bryan’s enemies do 
not deny that he possesses exceptional ability. 


WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT. 


William Howard Taft was born at Cincinnati, Ohio, Septem¬ 
ber 15, 1857. He was educated at a local school in Cincinnati 
and at Yale University, where he was graduated in 1878 with high 
honors. Two years’ study of law at the Cincinnati Law College 
prepared him for passing the examination for the Ohio bar in 
1880. After his admittance to the bar he became the law reporter 
for the Cincinnati Commercial. Two years more were spent in 
minor State offices, as Assistant Prosecutor of Hamilton County 
and Collector of Internal Revenue. This latter post he finally 
resigned to enter actively into the practice of law. In 1887, Mr. 
Taft was appointed Judge of the Superior Court of the State of 
Ohio by Governor Foraker. Three years later he received an 
appointment as Solicitor General of the United States and finally 

as Judge of the Federal Court of the Sixth Circuit of Ohio. 

■* 

Thus twelve years after leaving college he was installed in a life 
position of high honor. In 1896, the University of Cincinnati 
made him Dean of the Layv Department and Lecturing Professor. 

This briefly is Mr. Taft’s life before 1900, when he was 
appointed by the late President McKinley as a member of the 
Philippine Commission. To tell in detail what was done by Mr. 
Taft as Solicitor General under President Harrison and as Judge 
of the Ohio Circuit is difficult. In such positions there are small 
opportunities for spectacular efforts and the incumbent must rest 
his claim to merit upon the slowly cumulative testimony of the 
years. Mr. Taft, however, attracted special attention by his argu¬ 
ments on the Behring Sea case. His conduct in various import¬ 
ant cases secured his selection for that most delicate Philippine 
task to which he was next appointed. Upon this record as Gover¬ 
nor of the Philippines and head of the Philippine Commission 
his reputation rests chiefly. 

Llere indeed the results that Mr. Taft has achieved are plain. 
On his arrival in 1900 he found the Togalogs in insurrection and 
the Islands, held down by the army, ripe for continued rebellions. 
He left the country enjoying, wherever the inhabitants were 
capable of it, a local home rule and military control practically 
done away with. He found the chaos left from Spanish defeat 
in which no attempt whatever at civil government was made out¬ 
side of garrison towns. He left a full machinery of administra¬ 
tion, a Supreme Court and a system in which practically every 


16 


man in the Commission’s employ is under Civil Service. He 
found the old iniquitous custom of farming out the taxes. He 
left just taxation. He established a stable gold currency and 
left a system of public schools, every teacher of which is also 
under Civil Service rules. The purchase of the Friars’ lands has 
put an end to the three centuries of ecclesiastical misrule that 
had oppressed the Pilippines. The carrying through of all of 
these measures was largely the result of his efforts as head of the 
Commission. 

Upon Mr. Root’s resignation from the office of Secretary of 
War, Mr. Taft was appointed to fill that office, of which the gov¬ 
ernment of our colonies , is now a chief function. 



17 


WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST. 


Though the “Hearst” papers have consistently supported the 
regular Democratic nominees, with the exception of the occasion 
in California when they exerted their influence in favor of a 
“Labor” ticket, their proprietor has not taken, until last year, any 
active or personal interest in politics. 

In 1903 he began a political career as Representative from the 
Eleventh Congressional District of New York. Almost his only 
actions have been to introduce a resolution on the eight-hour bill, 
considered in Committees of both Houses, and to make one speech. 
This year he is a Presidential candidate with a full-fledged boom, 
the delegates of several States pledged to his nomination and 
sufficient support throughout the country to have created a keen 
apprehension among the “conservative” Democrats. 

Mr. Hearst’s interests before this entry into political life 
were principally concerned with newspaper publishing. He 
secured the control of important dailies in the leading cities and 
built up their circulation by original methods. He purchased 
the San Francisco Journal in 1895 and later the Advertiser of 
the same city. Another newspaper in Los Angeles was added not 
long ago. The Chicago American, The New York American and 
Journal and the San Francisco Examiner are, however, his prin¬ 
cipal organs. To them has lately been added the Boston Ameri¬ 
can. 

It is an undoubted fact that the influence of these papers is 
tremendous. The New York American alone claims the enor¬ 
mous daily circulation of 800,000. In all of them is advocated 
the cause of the laboring class. The editorials, though not the 
work of Mr. Hearst, embody his principles and his slogans in this 
campaign—“abolish the trusts” and “give labor its rightful 
share.” 

With the power of his own papers behind him Mr. Hearst 
has entered the race for the Presidency in a determined and thor¬ 
ough manner. Every issue of his papers appeals to all Democrats 
and working men to rally around his standard. Throughout the 
country are being* organied “Hearst Clubs” to press his candidacy. 
He is attempting a policy never heretofore successful—to consoli¬ 
date the labor vote. 

As to Mr. Hearst’s strength in the Democratic party there is 
a great deal of uncertainty. It is stated that the Democratic 


is 


Convention was fixed for St. Louis instead of Chicago because of 
Mr. Hearst’s strength in the latter city. His influence in the 
Western States is considerable and the recent conventions in 
Rhode Island, Kansas, Illinois and other States shows an unex¬ 
pected strength. Finally, his candidacy is the only one which Mr. 
Bryan has announced himself willing to support in case of a nomi¬ 
nation. If the active aid of this leader can be gained the support 
of a very large section of the party is assured. The fact that Mr. 
Hearst is the one among the Democratic “possibilities” who first 
definitely announced himself as a candidate and set in motion a 
well organized boom has given him an advantage that has been 
utilized to the full. 

So that while various reasons make it unlikely that Mr. 
Hearst will be the regular Democratic nominee for President, all 
the indications are that with Bryan as his ally he will have great 
influence in the convention. A bolt, if control is not secured by 
the coalition, is quite possible, followed by the launching of a 
third ticket. 

Mr. Hearst is the son of the late California Senator George 
W. Hearst, from whom he inherited a fortune. In 1903, the same 
year that he entered Congress, he married Miss Millicent Willson. 
He is a young man, but is a leading factor in the political situa¬ 
tion of to-day. His starting of “Hearst Clubs” and the continued 
pushing of his candidacy in his own papers are features entirely 
unknown heretofore in American politics. If, however, his politi¬ 
cal methods are as successful in securing votes as his journalistic 
methods have been in securing readers, his ambition for the Presi¬ 
dency is indeed serious. 


19 




PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED 



STATES 

i. 




Residence. 

Year. 

Age. 

Party. 

George Washington. 

Virginia. 

1789 

57 


John Adams. 

Massachusetts. 

1797 

62 

Federal. 

Thomas Jefferson. 

Virginia. 

1801 

58 

Dem.-Rep. 

James Madison. 

Virginia. 

1809 

58 

Dem.-Rep. 

James Monroe. 

Virginia. 

1817 

59 

Dem.-Rep. 

John Quincy Adams. 

Massachusetts. 

1825 

58 

Federal. 

Andrew Jackson. 

Tennessee. 

1829 

62 

Dem. 

Martin Van Buren. 

Hew York. 

1837 

55 

Dem. 

William H. Harrison. 

Ohio. 

1841 

68 

Whig. 

John Tyler. 

Virginia. 

1841 

51 

Dem. 

James K. Polk. 

Tennessee. 

1845 

50 

Dem. 

Zachary Taylor. 

Louisiana. 

1849 

65 

Whig. 

Millard Fillmore. 

New York. 

1850 

50 

Whig. 

Franklin Pierce. 

N. Hampshire. 

1853 

49 

Dem. 

James Buchanan. 

Pennsylvania. 

1857 

66 

Dem. 

Abraham Lincoln. 

Illinois. 

1861 

52 

Rep. 

Andrew Johnson. 

Tennessee. 

1865 

57 

Rep. 

Flysses S. Grant. 

I). C. 

1869 

47 

Rep. 

Rutherford B. Hayes. 

Ohio. 

1877 

54 

Rep. 

James A. Garfield. 

Ohio. 

1881 

49 

Rep. 

Chester A. Arthur. 

New York. 

1881 

51 

Rep. 

Grover Clevand. 

New York. 

1885 

48 

Dem. 

Benjamin Harrison. 

Indiana. 

1889 

55 

Rep. 

Grover Cleveland. 

New York. 

1893 

56 

Dem. 

William McKinley. 

Ohio. 

1897 

54 

Rep. 

Theodore Roosevelt. 

New York. 

1901 

43 

Rep. 


20 


REPUBLICAN CONVENTION AND 

PLATFORM. 

4 

THE CONVENTION. 

On June 19, 1900, the Republican National Convention met 
at Philadelphia, the nomination of President McKinley for the 
first place on the ticket being universally conceded. The Western 
States were practically a unit in favoring Governor Theodore 
Roosevelt of New York for the second place. He, however, pre¬ 
ferring to run for another term as Governor of New York, wished 
to avoid the nomination. Other Vice-Presidential possibilities 
were John D. Long, Secretary of the Navy; Congressman Dolliver, 
of Iowa; Lieutenant-Governor Timothy L. Woodruff, of New York, 
and Cornelius N. Bliss, of the same State. After the Conven¬ 
tion’s adjournment for the day the New York delegation indorsed 
Woodruff for Vice-President. The second day’s session, June 20, 
was devoted principally to the adoption of the platform. Vice- 
Presidential sentiment was strongly in favor of Roosevelt. Sena¬ 
tor Hanna declared for him and his nomination became certain. 
The Convention, on June 21, unanimously nominated McKinley 
and Roosevelt, giving McKinley every vote in the Convention, 926. 
Roosevelt’s own vote was not cast, but otherwise his nomination 
was also unanimous. 


THE PLATFORM. 

The Republicans of the United States, through their chosen 
representatives, met in National Convention, looking back upon 
an unsurpassed record of achievement and looking forward into 
a great field of duty and opportunity, and appealing to the judg¬ 
ment of their countrymen, make these declarations: The expecta¬ 
tion in which the American people, turning from the Democratic 
party, intrusted power four years ago to a Republican Chief Mag¬ 
istrate and a Republican Congress has been met and satisfied. 
When the people then assembled at the polls, after a term of Demo- 


# 


21 


cratic legislation and administration, business was dead, industry 
paralyzed and the National credit disastrously impaired. The 
country’s capital was hidden away and its labor distressed and un¬ 
employed. The Democrats had no other plan with which to 
improve the ruinous conditions which they had themselves pro¬ 
duced than to coin silver at the ratio of 16 to 1. The Republican 
party, denouncing this plan as sure to produce conditions even 
worse than those from which relief was sought, promised to restore 
prosperity by means of two legislative measures—a productive 
tariff and a law making gold the standard of value. The people 
by great majorities issued to the Republican party a commission to 
enact these laws. This commission has been executed, and the 
Republican promise is redeemed. Prosperity more general and 
more abundant than we have ever known has followed these enact¬ 
ments. There is no longer controversy as to the value of any 
Government obligations. Every American dollar is a gold dollar, 
or its assured equivalent, and American credit stands higher than 
that of any nation. Capital is fully employed and labor every¬ 
where is profitably occupied. No single fact can more strikingly 
tell the story of what Republican Government means to the coun¬ 
try than this—that while during the whole period of one hundred 
and seven years, from 1790 to 1897, there was an excess of exports 
over imports of only $383,028,497, there has been in the short 
three years of the Republican administration an excess of exports 
over imports in the enormous sum of $1,483,537,094. And while 
the American people sustained by this American legislation have 
been achieving these splendid triumphs in their business and com¬ 
merce, they have conducted, and in victory concluded, a war for 
liberty and human rights. No thought of National aggrandize¬ 
ment tarnished the high purpose with which American standards 
were unfurled. It was a war unsought and patiently resisted, but 
when it came the American Government was ready. Its fleets 
were cleared for action. Its armies were in the field, and the 
quick and signal triumph of its forces on land and sea bore equal 
tribute to the courage of American soldiers and sailors and to the 
skill and foresight of Republican statesmanship. To ten millions 

of the human race there was given “a new birth of freedom” and to 
the American people a new and noble responsibility. 

We indorse the administration of William McKinley. Its 
acts have been established in wisdom and in patriotism, and at 
home and abroad it has distinctly elevated and extended the influ¬ 
ence of the American nation. Walking untried paths and facing 
unforeseen responsibilities. President McKinley has been in every 
situation the true American patriot and the upright statesman. 




*>•7 


clear in vision, strong in judgment, firm in action, always inspiring 
and deserving the confidence of his countrymen. In asking the 
American people to indorse this Republican record and to renew 
their commission to the Republican party we remind them of the 
fact that the menace to their prosperity has always resided in 
Democratic principles, and no less in the general incapacity of the 
Democratic party to conduct public affairs. The prime essential 
of business prosperity is public confidence in the good sense of the 
Government and in its ability to deal intelligently with each new 
problem of administration and legislation. That confidence the 
Democratic party has never earned. It is hopelessly inadequate, 
and the country’s prosperity when Democratic success at the polls 
is announced halts and ceases in mere anticipation of Democratic 
blunders and failures. 

We renew our allegiance to the principle of the gold standard, 
and declare our confidence in the wisdom of the legislation of the 
fifty-sixth Congress, by which the party of all our money and the 
stability of pur currency upon a gold basis have been secured. We 
recognize that interest rates are a potent factor in production and 
business activity and for the purpose of further equalizing and of 
further lowering the rates of interest we favor such momentary 
legislation as will enable the varying needs of the season and of all 
sections to be promptly met, in order that trade may be evenly 
sustained, labor steadily employed and commerce enlarged. The 
volume of money in circulation was never so great par capita as 
it is to-day. We declare our steadfast opposition to the free and 
unlimited coinage of silver. No measure to that end could be con¬ 
sidered which was without the support of the leading commercial 
countries of the world. However firmly Republican legislation 
may seem to have secured the country against the peril of base 
and discredited currency, the election of a Democratic President 
could not fail to impair the country’s credit and to bring once more 
into question the intention of the American people to maintain 
upon the gold standard and parity of their money circulation. The 
Democratic party must be convinced that the American people will 
never tolerate the Chicago platform. 

We recognize the necessity and propriety of the honest co¬ 
operation of capital to meet new business conditions, and especially 
to extend our rapidly increasing foreign trade, but we condemn all 
conspiracies and combination intended to restrict business, to 
create monopolies, to limit production or to control prices, and favor 
such legislation as will effectively restrain and prevent all such 
abuses, protect and promote competition and secure the rights of 
producers, laborers and all who are engaged in industry and com¬ 


merce. 




t 

We renew our faith in the policy of protection to American 
labor. In that policy our industries have been established, diversi¬ 
fied and maintained. By protecting the home market competition 
has been stimulated and production cheapened. Opportunity for 
the inventive genius of our people has been secured and wages in 
every department of labor maintained at high rates, higher now 
than ever before, and always distinguishing our working people in 
their better conditions of life from those of any competing country. 
Enjoying the blessings of the American common schools, secure in 
the right of self-government and protected in the occupancy of 
their own markets their constantly increasing knowledge and skill 
have enabled them finally to enter the markets of the world. 

We favor the associated policy of reciprocity so directed as to 
open our markets on favorable terms for what we do not ourselves 
produce in return for free foreign markets. In the further interest 
of American workmen we favor a more effective restriction of the 
immigration of cheap labor from foreign lands, the extension of 
opportunities of education for working children, the raising of the 
age limit for child labor, the protection of free labor as against 
contract convict labor, and an effective system of labor insurance. 

Our present dependence upon foreign shipping for nine-tenths 
of our foreign carrying is a great loss to the industry of this coun¬ 
try. It is also a serious danger to our trade, for its sudden with¬ 
drawal in the event of European war would seriously cripple our 
expanding foreign commerce. The National defence and naval 
efficiency of this country, moreover, supply a compelling reason for 
legislation which will enable us to recover our former place among 
the trade carrying fleets of the world. 

The nation owes a debt of profound gratitude to the soldiers 
and sailors who have fought its battles, and it is the Government’s 
duty to provide for the survivors and the widows and orphans of 
those who have fallen in the country’s wars. The pension laws, 
founded in this just sentiment, should be liberal, and should be 
liberally administered, and preference should be given wherever 
practicable with respect to employment in the public service to 
soldiers and sailors and to their widows and orphans. 

We command the policy of the Republican party in maintain¬ 
ing the efficiency of the Civil Service. The administration has 
acted wisely in its effort to secure for public service in Cuba, Porto 
Rico, Hawaii and the Philippine Islands only those whose fitness 
has been determined by training and experience. We believe that 
employment in the public service in these territories should be con¬ 
fined as far as practicable to their inhabitants. 

It was the plain purpose of the Fifteenth Amendment to the 


24 


Constitution to prevent discrimination on account of race or color 
in regulating the elective franchise. Devices of State govern¬ 
ments, whether by statutory or constitutional enactment, to avoid 
the purpose of this amendment are revolutionary and should be 
condemned. 

Public movements looking to a permanent improvement of the 
roads and highways of the country meet with our cordial approval, 
and we recommend this subject to the earnest consideration of the 
people and of the Legislatures of the several States. We favor the 
extension of the rural free delivery service whether its extension 
may be justified. In further pursuance of the constant policy of 
the Republican party to provide free homes on the public domain, 
we recommend adequate National legislation to reclaim the arid 
lands of the United States, reserving control of the distribution of 
water for irrigation to the respective States and Territories. 

We favor home rule for and the early admission to Statehood 
of the Territories of New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma. 

The Dingley Act amended to provide sufficient revenue for the 
conduct of the war has so well performed its work that it has been 
possible to reduce the war debt in the sum of $40,000,000. So 
ample are the Government’s revenues and so great is the public 
confidence in the integrity of its obligations that its newly funded 
2 per cent, bonds sell at a premium. The country is now justified 
in expecting, and it will be the policy of the Republican party, to 
bring about a reduction of the war taxes. 

We favor the construction, ownership, control and protection 
of an isthmian canal by the Government of the United States. 
New markets are necessary for the increasing surplus of our farm 
products. Every effort should be made to open and obtain new 
markets, especially in the Orient, and the administration is warmly 
to be commended for its successful effort to commit all trading and 
colonizing nations to the policy of the open door in China. In the 
interest of our expanding commerce we recommend that Congress 
create a department of Commerce and Industries in the charge of 
a Secretary with a seat in the Cabinet. 

The United States consular system should be reorganized under 
the supervision of this new department, upon such a basis of 
appointment and tenure as will render it still more serviceable to 
the Nation’s increasing trade. The American Government must 
protect the person and property of every citizen wherever they are 
wrongfully violated or placed in peril. 

We congratulate the women of America upon their splendid 
record of public service in the volunteer aid association, and as 
nurses in camp and hospital during the recent campaigns of our 


armies in the Eastern and Western Indies, and we appreciate their 
faithful co-operation in all works of education and industry. 

President McKinley has conducted the foreign affairs of the 
United States with distinguished credit to the American people. 
In releasing us from the vexatious conditions of a European alli¬ 
ance for the government of Samoa his course is especially to be 
commended. By securing to our undivided control the most im¬ 
portant island of the Samoan group and the best harbor in the 
Southern Pacific, every American interest has been safeguarded. 
We approve the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United 
States. We commend the part taken by our Government in the 
Peace Conference at The Hague. We assert our steadfast adher¬ 
ence to the policy announced in the Monroe Doctrine. The pro¬ 
visions of The Hague convention were wisely regarded when Presi¬ 
dent McKinley tendered his friendly offices in the interest of peace 
between Great Britain and the South African republics. While 
the American Government must continue the policy prescribed 
by Washington, affirmed by every succeeding President and im¬ 
posed upon us by The Hague Treaty, of non-intervention in 
European controversies, the American people earnestly hope that a 
way may soon be found, honorable alike to both contending parties, 
to terminate the strife between them. In accepting by the Treaty 
of Paris the just responsibility of our victories in the Spanish War 
the President and the Senate won the undoubted approval of the 
American people. Ho other course was possible than to destroy 
Spain’s sovereignty throughout the West Indies and in the Philip¬ 
pine Islands. That course created our responsibility before the 
world, and with the unorganized population whom our intervention 
had freed from Spain, to provide for the maintenance of law and 
order, and for the establishment of good government and for the 
performance of international obligations. Our authority could not 
he less than our responsibility, and wherever sovereign rights were 
extended it became the high duty of the Government to maintain 
his authority, to put down armed insurrection and confer the bless¬ 
ings of liberty and civilization upon all the rescued peoples. The 
largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare 
and our duties shall be secured to them by law. To Cuba inde¬ 
pendence and self-government were assured in the same voice by 
which war was declared, and to the latter this pledge will be per¬ 
formed. The Republican party, upon its history and upon this 
declaration of its principles and policies, confidently invokes the 
considerate and approving judgment of the American people. 

The Republican Hational Convention of 1904 will be held June 
21 at Chicago. 

26 


DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION AND 

PLATFORM. 

THE CONVENTION. 

Oil July 4, 1900, the Democratic National Convention met at 
Kansas City, Mo. The Tammany delegation from New York suc¬ 
ceeded in securing Mr. Van Wyck as the New York representative 
of the Resolutions Committee, thus excluding from that body Mr. 
David B. Hill. Mr. William Jennings Bryan was unanimously 
nominated for President on the second day of the convention. The 
same day was adopted the platform containing a “free silver” 
plank, but making “Imperialism” the “paramount issue.” Adlai 
E. Stevenson was nominated for Vice-President on the first ballot 
on July 6 and the convention then adjourned. 


THE PLATFORM. 

On July 5 the Convention adopted the following platform: 

We, the representatives of the Democratic party of the United 
States assembled in National Convention on the anniversary of the 
adoption of the Declaration of Independence, do reaffirm our faith 
in that immortal proclamation of the inalienable rights of man, 
and our allegiance to the Constitution framed in harmony there¬ 
with by the Fathers of the Republic. We hold with the United 
States Supreme Court that the Declaration of Independence is the 
spirit of our Government, of which the Constitution is the form 
and letter. We declare again that all governments instituted 
among men derive their just power from the consent of the gov¬ 
ernment; that any government not based upon the consent of the 
governed is a tyranny, and that to impose upon any people a gov¬ 
ernment of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for 
those of a republic. We hold that the Constitution follows the flag 
and denounce the doctrine that an Executive or Congress, deriving 
their existence and their powers from the Constitution, can exercise 
lawful authority beyond it, or in violation of it. We assert that 


I 


no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we 
warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly 
and inevitably to despotism at home. 

Believing in these fundamental principles, we denounce the 
Porto Rican law, enacted by a Republican Congress, against the 
protest and opposition of the Democratic minority, as a bold and 
open violation of the Nation’s organic law and a flagrant breach 
of National good faith. It imposes upon the people of Porto Rico 
a government without their consent and taxation without repre¬ 
sentation. It dishonors the American people by repudiating a 
solemn pledge made in their behalf by the commanding general 
of our Army, which the Porto Ricans welcomed to a peaceful and 
unresisted occupation of their land. It dooms to poverty and dis¬ 
tress a people whose helplessness appeals with peculiar force to our 
justice and magnanimity. In this the first act of its imperialistic 
programme, the Republican party seeks to commit the United 
States to a colonial policy inconsistent with Republican institu¬ 
tions and condemned by the Supreme Court in numerous decisions. 

We demand the prompt and honest fulfillment of our pledge 
to the Cuban people and the world, that the United States has no 
disposition nor intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or 
control over the island of Cuba, except for its pacification. The 
war ended nearly two years ago, profound peace reigns over all 
the island, and still the administration keeps the government of the 
island from its people, while Republican carpet-bag officials plunder 
its revenues and exploit the colonial theory to the disgrace of the 
American people. 

We condemn and denounce the Philippine policy of the pres¬ 
ent administration. It has embroiled the Republic in an unneces¬ 
sary war, sacrificed the lives of many of its noblest sons and placed 
the United States, previously known and applauded throughout 
the world as the champion of freedom, in the false and un-Ameri¬ 
can position of crushing with military force the efforts of our for¬ 
mer allies to achieve liberty and self-government. The Filipinos 
cannot be citizens without endangering our civilization; they can¬ 
not be subjects without imperiling our form of Government; and 
as we are not willing to surrender our civilization, or to convert 
the Republic into an empire, we favor an immediate declaration 
of the Nation’s purpose to give the Filipinos, first, a stable form 
of government; second, independence, and, third, protection from 
outside interference such as has been given for nearly a century 
to the republics of Central and South America. The greedy com¬ 
mercialism which dictated the Philippine policy of the Republican 
administration attempts to justify it with the plea that it will pay. 


28 


but even this sordid and unworthy plea fails when brought to the 
test of facts. The war of “criminal aggression” against the Fili¬ 
pinos, entailing an annual expense of many millions, has already 
cost more than any possible profit that could accrue from the entire 
Philippine trade for years to come. Furthermore, when trade is 
extended at the expense of liberty the price is always too high. 

We are not opposed to territorial expansion when it takes in 
industrial territory which can be erected into States in the Union, 
and whose people are willing and fit to become American citizens. 
We favor trade expansion by every peaceful and legitimate means. 
But we are unalterably opposed to the seizing or purchasing of 
distant islands to be governed outside the Constitution and whose 
people can never become citizens. We are in favor of extending 
the Republican’s influence among the nations, but believe that 
influence should be extended not by force and violence, but through 
the persuasive power of a high and honorable example. 

The importance of other questions now pending before the 
American people is in no wise diminished and the Democratic party 
takes no backward step from its position on them; but the burning 
issue of imperialism, growing out of the Spanish War, involving 
the very existence of the Republic and the destruction of our free 
institutions, we regard as the paramount issue of the campaign. 

The declaration of the Republican platform adopted at the 
Philadelphia Convention, held in June, 1900, that the Republican 
party “steadfastly adheres to the policy announced in the Monroe 
doctrine” is manifestly insincere and deceptive. This profession 
is contradicted by the avowed policy of that party, in opposition to 
the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, to acquire and hold sovereignty 
over large areas of territory and large numbers of people in the 
Eastern Hemisphere. We insist on the strict maintenance of the 
Monroe Doctrine in all its integrity, both in letter and in spirit, as 
necessary to prevent the extension of European authority on these 
continents and as essential to our supremacy in American affairs. 
At the same time we declare that no American people shall ever 
be held by force in unwilling subjection to European authority. 

We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and intimi¬ 
dation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm which 
has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what millions of our 
citizens have fled from in Europe. It will impose upon our peace- 
loving people a large standing army, an unnecessary burden of 
taxation, and would be a constant menace to their liberties. A 
small standing army and a well-disciplined State militia are amply 
sufficient in time of peace. This Republic has no place for a vast 
military establishment, a sure forerunner of compulsory military 

29 


/ 


service and conscription. When the Nation is in danger the volun¬ 
teer soldier is his country’s best defender. The National Guard of 
the United States should ever be cherished in the patriotic hearts of 
a free people. Such organizations are ever an element of strength 
and safety. For the first time in our history and coeval with 
the Philippine conquest has there been a wholesale departure from 
our time-honored and approved system of volunteer organization. 
We denounce it as un-American, undemocratic and unrepublican 
and as a subversion of the ancient and fixed principles of a free 
people. 

Private monopolies are indefensible and intolerable. They 
destroy competition, control the price of raw material and of the 
finished product, thus robbing both producer and consumer. They 
lessen the employment of labor and arbitrarily fix the terms and 
conditions thereof; and deprive individual energy and small capital 
of their opportunity for betterment. They are the most efficient 
means yet devised for appropriating the fruits of industry to the 
benefit of the few at the expense of the many; and, unless their 
insatient greed is checked, all wealth will be aggregated in a few 
hands and the Republic destroyed. The dishonest paltering with 
the trust evil by the Republican party in its State and National 
platforms is conclusive proof of the truth of the charge that trusts 
are the legtimate product of Republican policies, that they are 
fostered by Republican laws, and that they are protected by the Re¬ 
publican administration in return for campaign subscriptions and 
political support. We pledge the Democratic party to an unceas¬ 
ing warfare in Nation, State and city against private monopoly 
in every form. Existing laws against trusts must be enforced and 
more stringent ones must be enacted providing for publicity as to 
the affairs of corporations engaged in interstate commerce and re¬ 
quiring all corporations to show, before doing business outside of 
the State of their origin, that they have no water in their stock, 
and that they have not attempted, and are not attempting, to 
monopolize any branch of business or the production of any arti¬ 
cles of merchandise; and the whole constitutional power of Con¬ 
gress over interstate commerce, the mails and all modes of inter¬ 
state communication shall be exercised by the enactment of com¬ 
prehensive law upon the subject of trusts. Tariff laws should be 
amended by putting the products of trusts upon the free lists, to 
prevent monopoly under the plea of protection. The failure of the 
present Republican administration with an absolute control over all 
rhe branches of the National Government to enact any legislation 
designed to prevent or even curtail the absorbing power of trusts 
and illegal combinations, or to enforce the anti-trust laws already 


no 


on the statute books, proves the insincerity of the high-sounding 
phrases of the Republican platform. Corporations should be pro¬ 
tected in all their rights and their legitimate interests should be 
protected, but any attempt by corporations to interfere with the 
public affairs of the people or to control the sovereignty which 
creates them should be forbidden under such penalties as will make 
such attempts impossible. We condemn the Dingley Tariff Law as 
a trust breeding measure skilfully devised to give to the few favors 

which they do not deserve, and to place upon the many burdens 
which they should not bear. We favor such an enlargement of the 

scope of the Interstate Commerce law as will enable the Commis¬ 
sion to protect individuals and communities from discrimination 
and the public from unjust and unfair transportation rates. 

We reaffirm and indorse the principles of the National Demo¬ 
cratic platform adopted at Chicago in 1896 and we reiterate the 
demand of that platform for an American financial system made 
by the American people for themselves, which shall restore and 
maintain a bimetallic price level, and as part of such system the 
immediate restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of silver 
and gold at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for 
the aid or consent of any other nation. 

We denounce the currency bill enacted at the last session of 
Congress as a step forward in the Reimblican policy which aims 
to discredit the sovereign right of the National Government to issue 
all money, whether coin or paper, and to bestow upon National 
banks the power to issue and control the volume of paper money 
for their own benefit. A permanent National bank currency, 
secured by Government bonds, must have a permanent debt to rest 
upon, and, if the bank currency is to increase with population and 
business, the debt must also increase. The Republican currency 
scheme is, therefore, a scheme for fastening upon the taxpayers a 
perpetual and growing debt for the benefit of the banks. We are 
opposed to this private corporation paper circulated as money, but 
without legal tender qualities, and demand the retirement of 
National bank notes as fast as Government paper or silver certifi¬ 
cates can be substituted for them. We favor an amendment to the 
Federal Constitution providing for the election of United States 
Senators by direct vote of the people, and we favor direct legisla¬ 
tion wherever practicable. We are opposed to government by 
injunction; we denounce the blacklist and favor arbitration as a 
means of settling disputes between corporations and their em¬ 
ployers. 

In the interest of American labor and the upbuilding of the 
workingman as the cornerstone of the prosperity of our country, 


31 


we recommend that Congress create a Department of Labor, m 
charge of a Secretary, with a seat in the Cabinet, believing that 
the elevation of the American labor will bring with it increased 
production and increased prosperity to our country at home and to 
our commerce abroad. We are proud of the courage and fidelity 
of the American soldiers and sailors in all our wars; we flavor 
liberal pensions to them and their dependents; and we reiterate the 
position taken in the Chicago platform in 1896, that the fact of en¬ 
listment and service shall be deemed conclusive evidence against 
disease and disability before enlistment. 

We favor the immediate construction, ownership and control 
of the Nicaraguan Canal by the United States, and we denounce 
the insincerity of the plank in the Republican National platform 
for an isthmian canal, in the face of the failure of the Republican 
majority to pass the bill pending in Congress. We condemn the 
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty as a surrender of American rights and in¬ 
terests not to be tolerated by the American people. We denounce 
the failure of the Republican party to carry out its pledges to 
grant statehood to the territories of Arizona, New Mexico and 
Oklahoma, and we promise the people of those Territories imme¬ 
diate statehood and home rule during their condition as Terri¬ 
tories; we favor home rule and a territorial form of government 
for Alaska and Porto Rico. We favor an intelligent system of 
improving the arid lands of the West, storing the waters for the 
purposes of irrigation and the holding of such lands for' actual 
settlers. We favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the 
Chinese Exclusion Law and its application to the same classes of 
all Asiatic races. 

Jefferson said: “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with 
all nations, entangling alliances with none.'” We approve this 
wholesome doctrine and earnestly protest against the Republican 
departure which has involved us in so-called world politics, in¬ 
cluding the diplomacy of Europe and the intrigue and land grab¬ 
bing in Asia, and we especially condemn the ill-concealed Republi¬ 
can alliance with England, which must mean discrimination against 
other friendly nations, and which has already stifled the Nation’s 
voice while liberty is being strangled in Africa. 

Believing in the principles of self-government and rejecting 
as did our forefathers the claim of monarchy, we view with indig¬ 
nation the purpose of England to overwhelm with force the South 
African Republics. Speaking as we believe, for the entire Ameri¬ 
can Nation, except its Republican officeholders, and for all free 
men everywhere, we extend our sympathy to the heroic burghers 
in their unequal struggle to maintain their liberty and independ¬ 
ence. 


32 


We denounce the lavish appropriations of recent Republican 
Congresses, which hav3 kept taxes high and which threaten the 
perpetuation of the oppressive war levies. We oppose the accumu¬ 
lation of a surplus to be squandered in such bare-faced frauds 
upon the taxpayers as the Shipping Subsidy Bill, which, under the 
false pretence of fostering American shipbuilding, would put un¬ 
earned millions into the pockets of favorite contributors to the 
Republican campaign fund. We favor the reduction and speedy 
repeal of the war taxes, and a return to the time-honored Demo¬ 
cratic policy of strict economy in Government expenditures. 

Believing that our most cherished institutions are in great 
peril, that the very existence of our institutional Republic is at 
stake, and that the decision now to be rendered will determine 
whether or not our children are to enjoy those blessed privileges of 
free Government which have made the United States great, pros¬ 
perous and honored, we earnestly ask for the foregoing declara¬ 
tion of principles the hearty support of the liberty-loving Ameri¬ 
can people, regardless of previous party affiliations. 


STATE STATISTICS. 

Representation. 


» 


State. 

Gov. 

Sen. 

Rep. 

State Policies. 

Alabama. 

. D 

D 

9 D 

Anti Trust, 

1897, 





Ala. Ins. 

Act, 

1 




Negro Disfranchisement. 

Arkansas. 

. D 

D 

7 D 

Anti Trust, 

1897, 





Ark. Anti 
Act. 

Trust 

California . 

. R 

R 

5 R 






1 D 






2 L 



Colorado . 

. R 

D 

2 R 






1 D 



Connecticut . .. 

. R 

R 

5 R 



Delaware . 

.R 

R 

1 D 

Anti Trust, 

1891, 





Del. Life Ins. 

Law. 

Florida .. 

. D 

D 

3 D 

Anti Trust, 

1897. 





Fla. Legis. Relating 
to Cattle Trade. 

Georgia . 

. D 

D 

11 D 

Anti Trust, 

1896. 





Anti Monopoly 





Act. 


Idaho . 

.R 

1 D 

1 R 

i 




1 R 




Illinois. 

.R 

R 

8 D 

Anti Trust, 

1897. 




17 R 

Act Prohibiting 

Indiana . 




Pools, Trusts 
Combinations. 

and 

.R 

R 

9 R 

Anti Trust, 

1897. 

Iowa . 



4 D 

Ind. Anti 
Act. 

Trust 

.R 

R 

10 R 

Anti Trust, 

1890. 




1 D 

Anti Pool & 1 

Trust 


Law. 


34 














Kansas . 

... . R 

R 

8 R 

Anti Trust, 1897. 





Law Prohibiting 

* 




Trusts. 

Kentucky . 

... I) 

D 

10 D 

Anti Trust, 1890. 




1 R 

Law Prohibiting 

Pools, Trusts and 
Combinations. 

Louisiana . 

... I) 

B 

7 D 

Anti Trust, 1892, 





Negro Dis. Law for 
Prohibition o f 

Trusts, Combina¬ 
tions. For Re¬ 
straints of Trade. 

Maine . 

... R 

R 

4 R 

Anti Trust, 1889. 





Anti Trust Law. 

Maryland . 

.. . D 

1 D 

4 R 

Negro D. 



1 R 

2 I) 


Massachusetts . .. 

... . R 

R 

10 R 





4 D 


Michigan . 

... R 

R 

11 R 

Anti Trust, 1889. 




1 D 

Anti Trust Act. 

Minnesota . 

... R 

R 

8 R 

Anti Trust, 1891. 




1 D 

Law to Prohibit 
Pools and Trusts. 

Mississippi . 

... D 

D 

8 D 

Anti Trust, 1896, 





Negro His. Law 
Prohibiting Trusts 
and Com. 

Missouri . 

... D 

D 

15 D 

Anti Trust, 1891, 




1 R 

1895, 1897. Prob¬ 

able. Anti Trust 
Act. 

Montana . 

....D 

D 

1 R 

Anti Trust, 1895. 





Statute against Mo- 



— 


nopolies & Trusts. 

Nebraska . 

.. . R 

R 

5 R 

Anti Trust, 1895-1897, 




1 D 

Statute against 
Trusts and Com. 
against Trade and 
Business. 

Nevada . 

. . R 

1 R 

1 D 




1 D 



New Hampshire . .. 

.. R 

R 

2 R 



35 
















New Jersey. 

... R 

R 

7 R 

3 D 


New York. 

.. . R 

R 

17 D 

20 R 

Anti Trust, 1897. 
Law to Prevent 
Mon. 

North Carolina . .. 

... . D 

D 

10 D 

Anti Trust, 1889. 
Law for Prohibi¬ 
tion of Trusts. Ne¬ 
gro Dis. 

North Dakota . .. 

.... R 

R 

2 R 

Anti Trust, 1897. 
Law Disclaiming 
certain Trusts and 
Corn’s. Unlawful. 

Ohio . 

.... R 

R 

17 R 

4 D 


Oregon . 

.... D 

R 

2 R 


Pennsylvania .... 

R 

R 

27 R 

4 D 

1 Vac. 


Rhode Island. 

.. . D 

R 

1 R 

1 D 


South Carolina. .. 

.. . D 

D 

7 D 

Anti Trust, 1897. 
Negro Dis. Prohi¬ 
bition of Trusts & 
Com. 

South Dakota. 

.. . R 

R 

2 R 

Anti Trust, 1897. 
Anti Trust Law. 

Tennessee . 

... D 

D 

8 D 

2 R 

Anti Trust, 1889. 
Law to Prohibit 
Conspiracies and 
Trusts. 

Texas . 

... D 

D 

15 D 

1 Vac. 

Anti Trust, 1903. 

Utah . 

... . R 

R 

1 R 

Anti Trust, 1896. 
Prohibiting Pools 
and Trusts. 

Vermont . 

... . R 

R 

2 R 


Virginia .. 

.... D 

D 

9 D 

1 R 

Negro Dis. 

W ashington . 

... . R 

R 

3 R 

Anti Trust, 1895. 
Law Forbidding 
Trusts & Monopo¬ 
lies. 


36 


















West Virginia.R R 

Wisconsin .R R 


Wyoming . R R 

Arizona. 

Hawaiian Islands.... 

New Mexico. 

Oklahoma . 


5 R 


10 R 

Anti Trust, 1897. 

1 D 

Statute Prohibiting 


Trusts and Com. in 


Restraint of Trade. 

1 R 


1 D 


1 R 


1 R 


1 R 



A State is entitled to the same representation in the Electoral 
College as it has in Congress. The electoral vote of a State is 
thus equal to the number of its Representatives plus two Senators. 


) 








TRUSTS. 


Trusts have become to such an extent the object of wide¬ 
spread distrust, owing’ to the predominant place in the national life 
which their rapid growth in numbers and power has given them, 
to the mismanagement which last year’s slump in Wall Street ex¬ 
posed, and to their more than suspected influence over even the 
highest legislative bodies, that the cry, “Destroy the Trusts,” may 
well become a slogan to unite and put into power a new party, 
and the plank, “Regulate the Trusts,” is one which neither of the 
leading parties dares omit from its platform. 

Regarding the nature of these industrial organizations there 
are two distinct opinions that give rise to a corresponding diver¬ 
gence in the remedies proposed for the evils that all recognize. 
One view is that the trust system is as logical a step in eco¬ 
nomic development as was the factory system; that the evils pres¬ 
ent are those which inevitably accompany every great readjust¬ 
ment of industry; that monopoly is not the necessary end of a 
trust; that even if monopoly is attained the trust has not the 
power, save in exceptional cases, to abuse this situation either by 
raising prices and so oppressing the public (since this attracts 
powerful competitors), or by lowering wages for the workmen 
(since labor trusts, in the shape of powerful Trade Unions, 
make it impossible). Hence this section believe that to inter¬ 
pose any obstacle to the full development of the trust, is to pro¬ 
long the unsatisfactory period of change and, out of mere senti¬ 
ment, to retard industrial progress. 

The other idea is that the increased power of trusts marks 
the beginning of an industrial oligarchy; they beget a new sort 
of white peonage, which should be eradicated in the interests of 
humanity and good government. In this view, the end and aim 
of every trust is to attain a monopoly, and this once secured, to 
wring from the consumer the uttermost farthing; hence it is the 
interest of consumers to fight this new despotism till it is de¬ 
stroyed. 

A clear cut knowledge of the facts of the case is the first 


and most necessary step toward gaining a true conception of the 
present trust issue. Certain of these facts are generally recog¬ 
nized. First, that owing to their economics of centralization, their 
ability to buy in the best market, their avoidance of duplicate plants 
and their ability to install expensive machinery, trusts can pro¬ 
duce more cheaply than the smaller producers. A second fact is 
that this power is often used to ruin, by local rate cutting, the 
small dealers and manufacturers. A third fact is that this sort of 
organization furnishes an opportunity for stock watering and 
speculation that has produced large losses to legitimate as well 
as to illegitimate business. Fourth, trusts and pools have been 
able, in many cases, arbitrarily to raise prices. Fifth, trusts have 
in many cases unduly influenced legislative and judicial bodies. 

These facts, however, are not sufficiently definite to furnish a 
basis for regulating organizations with which the business inter¬ 
ests of the country are so vitally involved. The economy of pro¬ 
duction due to large organizations belongs to practically all 
trusts; the abuses are caused by comparatively few. It would 
be, for instance, an economic loss to a community to have the 
telephone service divided between four or five competing companies. 
For, in addition to the superfluous wires that would have to be 
laid, a business man would require half a dozen instruments in 
his office to reach his clients by telephone. Under a well regu¬ 
lated corporation possessing a telephone monopoly, one instrument 
and one set of wires would suffice. It is, therefore, a logical step to 
separate criminal from harmless organization of this class on the 
same principle that we segregate criminal individuals. To break 
some trusts would be just as truly a mistake as not to break 
certain others is a crime. 

In making this separation, the best basis is the manner and 
degree of monopoly, since even modified monopoly is universally 
regarded as dangerous if not contrary to the best interests of the 
people, and absolute monopoly, with the power arbitrarily to raise 
prices, is held as tyrannous and not to be borne. Monopoly, how¬ 
ever, is an elastic term. To one man it conveys the idea simply 
of “the largest share in an industry;” to another, “the absolute 
control of an industry with power to raise and lower prices at 
pleasure.” So that in undertaking to analyze the situation it is 
necessary to get a uniform definition of terms. The conceptions 
most commonly associated with the words are here adopted: 

“Trust:” Any large industrial organization having power ma¬ 
terially to influence an industry or business. 

“Monopoly:” Sole power of selling (not of necessity price 
raising power, which may be checked by “possible competition”). 


39 


“Absolute Monopoly:” Permanent sole power of selling at 
arbitrary prices. 

“PoolAgreement between independent organizations to 
sustain or raise prices. 

CLASSIFICATION. 

A. Trusts not possessing monopoly: eg. United States Rub¬ 
ber Company. 

B. Trusts possessing monopoly power, temporary or perma¬ 
nent : 

I. Public privilege monopolies: 

a. Patent, eg. Diamond Match Company. 

b. Franchise, eg. Consolidated Gas Company! 

e. Common carriers, eg. New T York, New Haven and 
Hartford R. R. Co. 

d. Tariff eg. American Sheet and Tin Plate Company 
(Subsidiary to U. S. Steel). 

II. Natural monopolies, eg. United States Steel Corpora¬ 
tion. 

III. Money monopolies. 

Combination, eg. Distillers’ Securities Company. 

A. TRUSTS WITHOUT MONOPOLY POWER. 

To this class of large and powerful organizations, which do 
not, however, possess the sole power of selling, belong the great 
bulk of American trusts. They are distinguished from ordinary 
corporations by their greater size and influence. Since they have 
rivals and undergo competition, they cannot arbitrarily raise 
prices and if they retain or increase their influence it is due, in gen¬ 
eral, to the economics of production made possible by the advan¬ 
tages peculiar to a large organization. It is a truth that these 
trusts have, as a ride, accomplished a marked cheapening, and 
have substituted competition between large units for competition 
between individuals. 

The fact that these trusts, except by illegal pools, cannot 
raise prices does not, however, vindicate entirely their desirabil¬ 
ity. Their volume of business enables them to extort rebates from 
transportation companies, their extent enables them to engage in 
local rate cutting to the destruction of the small dealer and pro¬ 
ducer, and their power permits them to bring great pressure to 
bear upon the legislative bodies. 

The Amalgamated Copper Company, while it is an extreme 
case and not typical of the non-monopoly class, illustrates 


40 


the degree of influence that such an organization may have. 
Capitalized at $155,000,000, controlled in a large measure by 
Standard Oil interests, this trust, though enormously powerful, 
has not a monopoly and is subject to keen competition, so that 
copper products have maintained low prices. But though its 
power to raise prices is small, the power of the trust to influence 
men is enormous and has been exerted unscrupulously to attain 
its ends. Defeated by Heintze in the courts of Montana, in trials 
where the amount of corruption instituted both parties was ap¬ 
palling, the Amalgamated, stating that it could not continue work 
when discriminated against at every turn, shut down all its mines 
and works throughout the State. The livelihood of so many peo¬ 
ple depended upon the company’s action that the Governor of Mon¬ 
tana was obliged to call a special Legislature to consider its de¬ 
mands. As a result of the “Fair Trial Act,” then passed, a deci¬ 
sion was shortly rendered favorable to the company. 

Regulation. 

The decisions of the courts in regard to non-monopoly trusts 
show an attempt at a regulation of the abuses, but since the break¬ 
ing up of the old “Trustee” organization no serious attack has 
been made upon the validity of the trusts themselves. Thus, 
though the Standard Oil Company, before it secured its monopoly, 
was sued again and again for procuring illegal rebates and for 
conspiracy, the validity of its present organization as a large cor¬ 
poration is legally recognized. 

In the Whiskey Trust Case of 1892, it was shown that the 
Trust gave a bounty to dealers who bought exclusively from it. 
This suit was dismissed and the courts upheld the legality of the 
organization. 

The judicial attitude to a non-monopoly trust is this: 

I. The organization is legal. 

II. Rebates, drawbacks, agreements to refrain from compet¬ 
ing, are illegal by Common and Statute Law, independently of 
whether a trust or an individual is responsible. 

A legitimate conclusion from the facts is that against a ma¬ 
jority of the non-monopoly trusts, an enforcement of existing 
laws is all that is at present necessary. But the strength of a 
company that can influence a State to so great an extent is un¬ 
doubtedly dangerous in the highest degree. It puts. too much 
unhedged sovereignty into the hands of a Board of Directors in 
Boston or New York. But as yet no measure has been found, or 
at least, enforced, competent to check this power. 


41 


B. MONOPOLY TRUSTS. 


I. Public privilege monopoly trusts are those which base 
their sole power of selling upon legal grants by the public. 

a. Patent Monopolies. 

These possess monopoly from patents or copyrights. The priv¬ 
ilege enjoyed in this case is granted as an encouragement to in¬ 
vention or research, to reward these services to the public. A good 
example of a Patent Monopoly Trust is the Diamond Match Com¬ 
pany, whose sole power of selling is due to the possession of patents 
for all the improved match-making machinery. This trust was 
able to force Bryant and May, the largest English match-makers, 
to sell out. It has power to raise prices arbitrarily to the point 
where it is profitable to make matches by the old method. 

b. Franchise Monopoly. 

This class includes the trusts that owe their monopoly to 
grants such as franchises, permission to lay pipes, wires, etc., in 
public property. All street railways, water companies, gas and 
electric companies supplying cities, which are powerful enough to 
be considered trusts, come under this head. The Consolidated Gas 
Company of New York exhibits a somewhat unsatisfactory form 
of this sort of monopoly. It obtained from the public the right of 
laying pipes, but the service is claimed to be poor, and the cost is 
$1 per 1,000 feet—50 per cent, more than it is in many other cities. 
Its stock sells at 195, and it pays 8 per cent, dividends. 

c. Common Carriers. 

Railroad lines form this class of Public Privilege Monopolies. 
Their privileges are founded originally upon the exercise by the. 
State of Eminent Domain. Monopoly in some circumstances may 
he complete. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railway 
is an example of this class of monopolies. It possesses the direct 
line between New York and Boston, owns the principal steamer 
lines along the Sound, and in its tributary district is without a 
competitor. Thus it has true monopoly power since it is the only 
organization able to sell certain services. By acquiring the New 
Haven street car lines, this company has forestalled possible com¬ 
petition from parallel lines of electric railways. 

d. Tariff Monopoly. 

Is due to the elimination of foreign competition in an in- 


dustry wherein there is but slight domestic competition. There 
are a large number of trusts for whose monopoly power the tariff is 
indirectly responsible, but comparatively few for which it is directly 
the cause. The best example of this class is the American Sheet 
and Tin Plate Company, one of the subsidiary companies of the 
United States Steel Corporation. It produces practically all the 
tin plate made in the United States, importing the tin from Wales 
and the Straits settlements, as none is mined in America. The 
industry and consequently the trust is a direct result of the Tariff. 

Regulation. 

The regulation of these Public Privileges Monopoly Trusts is 
a comparatively simple matter. If trusts owing their monopoly 
to patents, etc., use this power oppressively, these may be revoked 
at the pleasure of the Government, without radical Constitutional 
changes. If the monopoly due to a franchise, etc., granted by the 
public is abused, the remedy is in the hands of the people. For in 
granting franchises for public service there is always an implied 
or expressed right of the public to see that these privileges are 
used in the interest of the public. 

A similar principle applies to common carriers, though it has 
not been so clearly defined nor so thoroughly established as in the 
preceding classes. But in regulating Common Carrier Monopo¬ 
lies Congress has a Constitutional right to interfere, which has 
been expressed in many acts. 

The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 forbids rebates on any 
contracts for the pooling of freights, by common carriers. 

The Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1891 forbids “Combinations 
in restraint of trade.” 

The Elkins Anti Rebate Act of 1903 strengthens the prohibi¬ 
tion of rebates by abolishing the punishment of imprisonment 

(which could not be enforced) and prescribing a heavy fine. 

The courts have upheld the right of the Government to break 
up freight pools in the “Trans-Missouri” case, in which eighteen 
Western railroads had made a pooling contract. 

The Northern Securities Case, recently decided by the Su¬ 
preme Court, will go far towards establishing finally the right 
of Federal Government to regulate trusts in the form of common 
carriers. By this case has been decided the right of a holding 
company, the Northern Securities Company, to control two for¬ 
merly competing railways by purchasing their stock. As the ma¬ 
jority of railroads in the United States are controlled in a similar 
way, this decision against the Northern Securities Company, or¬ 
dering their dissolution, has put the Federal Government in a 
position to regulate to a great extent all common carriers. 


43 


It is possible to regulate Tariff Monopoly Trusts to a certain 
degree by taking off the duties upon trust made goods. A very 
strong and valid objection to this remedy in the case of indus¬ 
tries dependent upon the tariff is that the removal of duties would 
destroy first of all the smaller and weaker competitors of the 
trust, which would itself be the last to succumb. In the indus¬ 
tries too strong to need a tariff and entirely monopolized, this 
remedy, while a logical first step, would not be strong enough to 
really check their power. 

II. NATURAL MONOPOLIES. 

Trusts of this class are comparatively few, but may have 
enormous influence. Their power depends upon the ownership or 
control of natural advantages sufficiently great to give them the 
monopoly. 

a. Local. 

Mills or power stations possessing the only available source of 
water power may be said to have a natural monopoly. Their in¬ 
fluence extends generally only over a small field. The Pacific 
Coast Borax Company is a familiar example of a Natural Monop¬ 
oly. It controls the only deposits of borax in the country and so 
has the sole power of selling. 

But the small number of such trusts and their merely local 
importance makes them a minor problem. 

b. National and International. 

A monopoly of the sources of supply for the great industries 
is of tremendous import. 

When a trust has achieved a Natural Monopoly, it is secure, 
for it is unlikely that it will lose the power after eliminating 
competition and consolidating its resources after it has once at¬ 
tained this position in the face of competition. In general,' by 
getting through control of freight lines, terminals and other strate¬ 
gic positions of advantage it can make itself practically perma¬ 
nent. When thus entrenched. Natural Monopoly Trusts have a 
stupendous power, not only over the business in which they are en¬ 
gaged, but over consumers and law making bodies. The force of 
potential competition does not affect them, because their position 
makes competition in the future as impossible as in the present. 

Although the profits of the Standard Oil Company are enor¬ 
mous, competition is not to be feared, since competition would 
involve the building of a whole system of pipe lines and the ac- 


44 


quisition of oil wells in locations where the most available oil is 
already owned. It enjoys to the fullest extent all the advantages 
that organization and concentration give, in the way of economy. 
It has secured in every part of the world oil fields and refineries 
most convenient to the consumption centers. In Japan, for 
instance, where a high protective tariff exists against foreign pe¬ 
troleum products, the Standard owns the wells and refineries that 
supply the local trade. For China and the Philippines this trust 
owns a line of steamers. In Russia it holds some of the most im¬ 
portant wells in the petroleum district. Standard Oil stock stands 
at 675 and pays 44 per cent, dividends upon par value. It is 
undoubtedly true that in those countries where the Standard does 
not suffer competition, of which the United States is one, the 
price is raised well above competitive prices. 

To its possession of the most available ore deposits, and still 
more to its ownership of the sources of that fuel by which alone 
steel can be produced economically, the United States Steel Cor¬ 
poration owes its power of establishing and holding a selling price 
of $28 for steel rails that cost $12 to manufacture. 

Regulation. 

The removal of the Tariff Duties upon steel, in the case of the 
Steel Corporation, would undoubtedly lower the Trust price, while 
at the same time it would play havoc with independent steel pro¬ 
ducers. As the laws now stand, the organization, ownership and 
price manipulation of these trusts is legal. Only a constitutional 
amendment giving the Federal Government a large measure of 
control over them can secure adequate regulation. 

III. CAPITAL MONOPOLY TRUSTS 

Own their sole power of selling primarily to the possession 
of huge capital. This wealth enables them to buy out or fight 
competitors. 

The American Sugar Refining Company was at one time a 
Capitalistic Monopoly Trust of the consolidated class, having in 
its control 95 per cent, of all the refineries in the country. An 
attempt to raise prices so as to give an excessive margin of profit, 
attracted several competitors. The price of sugar fell immediately, 
and since then has stayed at a low margin of profit, due to the 
strong competition of various refineries. The reason of this fail¬ 
ure to hold up prices permanently was due to the fact that the 
margin of profit was raised so high that other competitors were 
able to come in before the trust could sufficiently consolidate its 
power. 

45 


V 


The Distillers’ Securities Corporation is a holding’ company 
for five combinations of distilleries. It holds 88 per cent, of their 
perferred stock and 87 per cent, of their common, and its own 
capital stock is $32,500,000. It has not been in existence long’ 
enough to exhibit a power to raise prices. • 

It is thus a legitimate conclusion that it is quite possible 
under present circumstances for a Money Trust to attain a monop¬ 
oly with the power arbitrarily to raise prices. But that unless 
the trust is very strongly intrenched it cannot permanently hold 
prices unreasonably high, although they can almost always be so 
raised temporarily; and that it is possible to hold prices per¬ 
manently higher than a competitive level. 

Regulation. 

The law in regard to this sort of monopoly, also, is weak. In 
the Sugar Trust case of 1895 it was decided that the purchase of 
four competing refineries, giving a practical monopoly, was not 
“in restraint of trade,” and so could not be punished under existing 
laws. The Whiskey Trust case in 1892 decided that the acquisi¬ 
tion three fourths of the distillery product trade was not pun¬ 
ishable. As the law now stands, the complete monopoly of an in¬ 
dustry is not in itself illegal, and these Monopoly Trusts may, if 
they can, put the price of their produce where they will. 

CONCLUSION. 

Hence, the trust problem in its lowest terms is: 

1. IIow to prevent over capitalization, dishonest promotion, 
and speculation among trust officials. 

2. How to bring the machinery of Government to bear upon 
Natural and Capital Monopolies, so that any abuse of their power 
may be immediately punished. 

3. How to provide for the dissolution of any dangerously 
powerful trust, monopoly or otherwise, without interfering with 
legitimate business. 

The most obvious way of securing absolute control over trusts 
is to provide for the National incorporation of all corporations 
doing business in niore than one State. The Federal Government 
in this case, as the creator of corporations, would have full power 
before granting the privilege of organization, to make rigid con¬ 
ditions about capitalization, publicity, etc. But a measure of this 
sort requires a Constitutional amendment, such as has already been 
defeated in Congress. It is radical, and its passage would un¬ 
doubtedly cause a heavy fall in values. It does not discriminate 
between the injurious and the useful. Finally, since the very ex- 


istence of these immensely powerful organizations would depend 
upon Government action, the pressure they would bring to bear 
would be the most powerful corruptive force in the world. And if 
the Government began to destroy certain particular ones, there 
would be influence brought to bear that would be the greatest pos¬ 
sible menace to free institutions and just government. 

A second proposed remedy is publicity. This, however, while 
it would lead to more conservative capitalization, does not strike 
at the root of the trust problem which is, that through these or¬ 
ganizations a limited number of men may get almost unlimited 
power. 

A more drastic method still would be to enact a law providing 
for the exportation of all trust products. In this way the for¬ 
eigner and not our own people would be exploited by Trusts em¬ 
ploying American labor. A law might be passed providing that 5 
per cent, of the produce of organizations capitalized at over $5,- 
000,000 must be exported the first year after the passage of the 
act, 10 per cent, the second year and so on. This is a measure but 
one degree less radical than their destruction, but by its power to 
“regulate commerce,'’ Congress may be held to possess the right to 
pass such an act. It would at the same time cause more conserva¬ 
tive capitalization, export from America the problem of industrial 
trusts and build up enormously our foreign commerce. 

PRINCIPAL TRUSTS IN THE UNITED STATES. 


Name of Company and State 
of Incorporation. 

Allis-Chalmers, N. J. 

Amalgamated Copper, N. J. 

Am. Agri. Chemical, Conn. 

Am. Alkali, N. J. 

Am. Beet Sugar, N. J. 

Am. Bicycle, N. J. 

Am. Can, N. J. 

Am. Car & Foundry, N. J. 

Am. Cotton Oil, N. J. 

Am. Grass Twine, Del. 

Am. Ice, N. J. 

Am. Iron & Steel Mfg., Pa. 

Am. Linseed N. J. 

Am. Locomotive, N. Y. 

Am. Smelting & Ref. Co., N. J.. . 

Am. Steel Foundries, N. J. 

Am. Sugar Ref., N. J. 

Con. Lake Superior, Conn. 

Con. Tobacco. N. J. 

Corn Products, N. J. 

Crucible Steel Co. of Am., N. J. . 
Distilleries Securities Corp., N. J 
Gen. Electric, N. Y. 


Com. Stock. 

20 , 000,000 
155 , 000 , 000-2 
17 , 215,600 
24 , 000,000 
15 , 000,000 
17 , 701,500 
41 , 233,300 
30 , 000 , 000-2 
20 , 237 , 100-4 
13 , 083,000 
22 , 937,100 
17 , 000,000 
16 , 750,000 
25 , 000,000 
50 , 000,000 
20 000,000 
45 , 000 , 000-7 
72 , 286,200 
30 , 000 , 000-20 
50 , 000,000 
25 , 000,000 
32 , 500,000 
43 , 937 , 400-8 


Div. Pref. Stock. 
16 , 250 , 000-7 

18 , 153 , 000-6 
6,000,000-8 
. 4 , 000,000 
9 , 294,900 7 
41 , 233 , 300-7 
30 , 000 , 000-7 
10 , 198 , 600 - 6 . 


13 , 407 , 100-6 

3 , 000 , 000-5 

16 , 750 , 000-7 

24 , 100 , 000-7 

50 , 000 , 000-7 

20 , 000 , 000-6 

45 , 000 , 000-7 

27 , 400,200 


30 , 000 , 000-7 

25 , 000 , 000-7 


Bonds 


9 , 500,000 


3 , 000 , 000 - 4 * 


156 , 593 , 400-4 


16 000 000 - 5 * 
2 049 400-3 


47 
















































4 


Havana Tubacco, N. J. 

International Harvester, N. J. 

International Mercantile Marine,N.J 

Jones & Laughlin Steel, Pa. 

Lackawanna Steel, N. Y. 

Nat’l Biscuit, N.J. 

Northern Securities, N.J. 

Pullman. 

Rock Island, N.J. 

Rubber Goods Mfg., N. J. 

Standard Oil, N.J. 

Tennessee Coal, Iron & R.R. Tenn . 

U. S. Leather, N.J.. 

U. S. Rubber, N. J. 

U. S. Shipbldg., R. J. 

U. S. Steel Corp., N.J. 

Virginia-Carolina Chem, N.J . 

Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg., Pa. 

Adams Ex... 

Am. Express. 

Manhattan R’way N. Y. 

Met. St. R way, N. Y. 

Peoples Gaslight & Coke Ill. 

U. S. Express. 

Western Union Tel., N. Y. 


30 000 000 
120,000000 
60 , 000,000 
30 , 000,000 
35 , 000,000 
29 , 236 , 000-4 
400 , 000,000 
74 , 000 , 000-8 
67 , 855,200 
16 , 941,710 
97 , 500 , 000-45 
22 , 553,060 
62 , 882,300 
23 , 660,000 
25 , 000,000 
508 , 495 , 200-2 
27 , 984 , 400-5 
14 , 030 , 576-7 
12,000,000-6 
18 000 , 000-8 
55 , 200 , 000-6 
52 , 000 , 000-7 
32 , 969 , 100-6 
10 , 000 , 000-4 
97 370 , 000-5 


5,000 000-5 


60 , 000 , 000-6 


23 , 825 , 100-7 


47 , 497 , 800-4 

8 , 051 , 400-7 


248 , 000-8 

62 , 282,300 

23 , 525 , 500-8 

20,000,000 

510 , 314 , 100-7 

12 , 000 , 000-8 

3 , 998 , 700-7 


7 , 500 , 000—5 


75 , 000 , 000 - 4 * 


15 , 000 , 000 - 5-6 

897,000 


4 000 , 000 - 4*-6 
5 , 280 , 000-6 
12 , 000 , 000-5 
24 , 500 , 000-5 
553 , 450 X 100-5 


3 050 000-5 
12,000 000-4 


40 , 000 , 000-4 

12 , 780 , 000-4 

12 , 000 , 000 - 5-6 


21 504 000 - 4*-5 


RAILROAD CONSOLIDATION. 


New York Central System. Lines owned in 1903: 


New York to East Albany. 144 

Albany to Buffalo. 297 

Branches . 377 


Total . 818 

Branches Leased.—Seventeen lines in New York, New Jer¬ 
sey and Pennsylvania. 

Principal lines controlled, but operated separately: 

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Ry., Dunkirk, 
Allegheny Valley and Pittsburg R, Lake Erie & Western R. 
Northern Ohio R. 

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. 

New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. 

Michigan Central Railroad. 

Canada Southern R. 

Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. 

Grand total, 10,526.25 miles. 


Pennsylvania Railroad System. Stocks of controlled roads 
owned by Penn. R. R. Co., 1903: 

8 east of Pittsburg. 

13 west “ 


48 



















































2 controlled jointly. 

Controlling interest in Baltimore & Ohio. 

Large interest in Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad. 

Norfolk & Western. 

Jointly with Vanderbilt Lines—Reading. 

Grand total, 10,274 miles. 

Also controls Cambria Steel Co., Pennsylvania Steel Co. , 

Missouri Pacific System. Lines owned, controlled or oper- 
1904: 

Mississippi Pacific—main and branches. 

St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. 

The Central Branch Ry. 

Arkansas & Louisiana Ry. 

Denver & Rio Grande Ry. Co. 

Rio Grande Western Ry. 

Helena and Louisville Ry. 

White River Ry. 

. Eldorado & Bastrop. 

Carthage & Western. 

Farmerville & Son. 

Fort Smith and Suburban. 

Little Rock & Fort Smith. 

St. Louis Valley. 

Memphis, Helena and Louisiana. 

TARIFF. 

As a result of the Supreme Court decision that an income tax 
is unconstitutional, the traditional issue of the two great parties, 
Free Trade vs. Protection, has changed to Revenue vs. Protective 
Tariff. For it is generally recognized that to supply the Govern¬ 
ment income a comparatively high tariff must remain. 

The attitudes of the two leading parties as they face the pres¬ 
ent bearings of this old issue are given below in parallel speeches, 
which crystallize the fundamental difference in the two ideas of 
what constitutes a just and effective tariff. 


REVENUE VS. PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 

Hon. John S. Williams, 1903. 

“The Democratic proposition is that whenever you remove the 
tariff duties down to the competitive point, or approximately, to 


I 


49 


that point where the American manufacturer or producer is left 
a fair profit, but without monopolistic power to work extortion on 
the home consumer while the manufacturer sells cheaper abroad, 
you have reduced the burden upon the American consumer with 
general benefit to all.” 

Hon. John P. Jones, 1900. 

“Is it not the duty of a country to maintain such industrial 
policy as will secure the greatest possible extent and variety of 
production, leaving to the natural competition between individuals 
the function of preventing undue profits on the part of any ? 
There are 23,000,000 of active workers in this country. Among 
that large number the contests and competition of those engaged 
in the same business may be relied on to adjust prices so that none 
can make a profit greater than the average profits of the com¬ 
munity.” 

HOME MARKET. 

Hon. J. S. Williams, 1903. 

“If they are selling below a fair profit, then in order to carry 
on their business abroad and here they must recoup at my expense 
and your expense as general consumers, and it is the tariff that 
enables them to do it. My friends, you have gone on for years 
howling about giving the American market to the American manu¬ 
facturer and the American producer. You have come to the point 
in connection with the barbed-wire industry, the nail industry, 
the steel-rail industry, the locomotive industry, the telephone and 
graphophone and sewing machine, and boot and shoe industries, 
and a great many others that I could mention, where those who 
control those industries have the foreign as well as* the home mar¬ 
ket, and you are still keeping the tariff up. 

“Now, one of two things necessarily happens when this occurs. 
Either the manufacturers do not need the protection, because they 
can vie with the foreigner and the “pauper labor” of the foreigner, 
after paying freight across the ocean, in his own market; and if 
they can, then certainly they can vie with him in the American 
market, after he has paid the freight across the ocean; either that 
is the case, or else they do need the protection and are selling be¬ 
low cost to the foreigner or below a fair profit and making up 
their losses on us at home.” 

Hon. Jacob H. Gallinger, 1900. 

“Our sales to the world outside of ourselves amount to, say 
$1,500,000,000; our sales home amount to $30,000,000,000. That 

50 


J 


is the relative value to us of the world’s markets and our home 
market. There are freights, commissions and profits to be consid¬ 
ered in foreign sales, while in home sales all transactions add t<» 

4k 

the income of the people.” 

NEW INDUSTRIES, 
lion. J. S. Williams, 1903. 

“Now, there is one contention made by the Republicans and 
by the advocates of protection everywhere which is true, and it is 
useless to deny the truth of it. It is true that you can pick out 
an enterprise and make it more profitable by protectionism. It 
is also true that you can create an enterprise de novo by protec¬ 
tionism. The only question left is whether you are willing to pay 
the price. And, if you state the proposition to the people as an 
original proposition, naming your enterprise and the price to be 
paid, they would very seldom be willing to enter into the bargain 
and pay the price.” 

ITon. Wm. A. Smith, 1902. 

“We are expending in Wales $20,000,000 every year for tin. 
There are men upon the other side of this Chamber to-day who 
did not believe that tin plate would ever be manufactured in the 
United States as the result of the McKinley law. 

“Prior to its enactment we imported 650,000,000 pounds an¬ 
nually from Europe. The first year of the law we made in 
America 13.000,000 pounds of tin plate, the third year 139,000,000 
pounds, the fifth year 30,400,000 pounds, and in 1900 there was 
manufactured in the United States 1,000,000,000 pounds of tin 
plate. 

“We no longer send out money abroad for the employment of 
the laborers of Wales. Twenty-three thousand American citizens 
now labor daily in the tin mills of our own country, while upwards 
of $15,000,000 is annually paid them in wages.” 

PROSPERITY. 

Hon. Martin J. Wade, 1904. 

“And so I say, what is there in this country to hinder pros¬ 
perity? It would be mighty strange if this nation of ours, with 
all its wonderous natural advantages, with all its wonderous people, 
just in the morning of Nationhood, just at the break of National 
day, it would indeed be “passing strange” if we should not make 
some progress.” 


51 


Hon. Jacob H. Gallinger, 1900. 

“Our friends on the other side are looking for an issue. They 
need not worry, the issue is looking for them. Prosperity is the 
issue, and all other questions are secondary. The American stand¬ 
ard of living, American manhood and American homes are but the 
resultants of Republican legislation, the sequences of a protective 
tariff which brought to us and will continue to give us an unpre¬ 
cedented age of luxury, an unparalleled area of prosperity." 

GROWTH OP INDUSTRIES. 

Hon. John S. Williams, 1903. 

“To show how prosperity comes anyhow, we have prosperity in 
both home and foreign trade in spite of a large measure of Re¬ 
publican hindrance. 

“It would go on prospering because of the magnificently exten¬ 
sive area in which there is absolutely free, unrestricted and un¬ 
trammeled trade. The world has never seen anything like it. It 
would go on prospering because it is a country of cheap land; and 
labor and wages are dependent in the ultimate analysis upon the 
price at which land can be bought or can be rented. Man does 
not get out of agriculture—out of the primitive and best condi¬ 
tions of man—and into other business unless he is paid to do it 
by greater compensation. If a man can get land cheap he can 
defy anybody that wants to tyrannize over him in regard to his 
wages by going upon the land and either buying it, or renting it, 
or entering it as a homestead. 

“It will continue to be prosperous for another reason—because 
we are the one people on the globe, except some of our British 
cousins in the colonies, where there is absolutely no caste, where 
a man knows that although he is working to-day pegging shoes he 
may the next year be governor or something of that sort, and that 
if he is not, his children may be almost anything—millionaires or 
presidents. Men work with hope and with incentive when they 
know that they are not confined within unleapable walls, and will 
continue to work. So I say that it is folly and partisanship to 
stand before the great American people and the world claiming 
the benefit of everything—our growth and even the discovery of 
gold in Alaska, and the invention of the cyanide process of getting 
more gold out of a given quantity of ore, or getting it out of in¬ 
tractable ore, and the benefit of all the inventions and all the 
progress of the world as fruits of tariff legislation, simply because 
you have been in power for the Lord knows how long. Mean¬ 
while we and the world have been growing in spite of you.” 


52 


Hon. James T. McCleary, 1904. 

“In thirty years during which our manufacturing industry has 
made such enormous progress as to astonish the world, agricul¬ 
ture, too, has kept pace. We have increased our output of pig 
iron from 1,665,179 tons in 1870 to over 17,000,000 tons in 1902; 
but while the men in the foundries and factories were accomplish¬ 
ing this result the farmers also made an equally astonishing rec¬ 
ord. In 1870 they had 25,484,100 cattle; in 1902 the number was 
61,424,599. In 1870 the number of horses was 9,248,800; in 1902 
despite the introduction of the trolley, the bicycle and the automo¬ 
bile, the number of horses had increased to 16,531,224. We now 
raise enough swine to provide the world with bacon and hams, the 
number increasing from 26,751,400 in 1870 to 56,982,142 in 1901. 
Our production of wool during the period increased from 162,000,- 
000 pounds to 316,341,032 pounds; of wheat, from 235,884,700 
bushels to 670,063,000 bushels; of corn, from 1,094,255 bushels to 
2,523,648,312 bushels, and of cotton from 4,347,006 bales to 10,^ 
680,600 bales. 

Wo other nation can make such a showing as this. Had we 
harkened to the free trader, however, it would not have been made.” 


REVENUE. 

Hon. John S. Williams, 1904. 

“Under the decision of the Supreme Court setting aside the 
income tax, no party in this country could get along without a 
very high rate of import duties, even if it wanted to cut them 
down. You have a right to levy import taxation or any other sort 
of taxation upon the citizen just to the extent of the necessities 
of a government carried on economically, constitutionally and 
effectively, and above that you have no right to do it.’ 

Hon. Jacob II. Gallinger, 1900. 

“Let me first call attention to our revenue during the past five 
years as compared to our revenues under the Wilson-Gorman law. 
It will be remembered that we had an annual deficit during those 
low-tariff years, and President Cleveland during a time of peace 
sold bonds to the amount of $262,000,000, which, with interest to 
time of maturity, will cost the country half a billion dollars.” 

PANIC OF 1893. 

Hon. J. S. Williams, 1903. 

“I want to call your attention to something in Mr. Harrison’s 


message in the year 1892. I find in his message of 1892 that he 
says our receipts from customs had fallen off $42,000,000 and some 
odd hundred thousands, the net loss of revenue from all sources 
being $32,675,972 and some cents. 

“You will remember that Harrison himself said in a newspaper 
interview, which I read and have never seen denied, that the reason 
he was thrown out of power and Cleveland was elected was because 
of the unprecedented hard times and suffering, for which the people 
of the South and West, without due reason, held his administra¬ 
tion responsible. Yet the gentleman from Ohio gets up here and 
tells you that when Cleveland came into power the country was 
in a condition of “great prosperity.’ 7 Why, Mr. Chairman, those 
hard times were not confined to the United States. The Baring 
Brothers broke; there was disaster and panic in Australia and in 
the Argentine Republic and all over the world, and it reached us 
last because we were the strongest nation and best able to stave 
it off, but when it reached us we got a very great dose of it.” 

Hon. Jacob IT. Gallinger, 1900. 

“Let me ask why the magnificient prosperity in 1892, and why 
the unspeakable losses, distress and destruction of 1893? There is, 
there can be, but one answer to this question, if we regard the 
striking contrast between 1892 and 1893 in the light of the 
national experiences we have passed through since 1783. The 
main cause, then, the real reason for this terrible change, these 
frightful losses in wealth and in business, this utter lack of confi¬ 
dence which everybody has in everybody else, is the fact that in 
November, 1892, a majority of both Houses of Congress and an 
Executive were elected upon a platform that declared protection 
“a fraud, a robbery and unconstitutional,” the McKinley bill a 
“culminating atrocity,” and who were pledged to remove and over¬ 
throw protection, and substitute therefor either free trade or 
tariff for revenue only, which is practically the same thing.” 

WAGES. 


Hon. J. S. Williams, 1904. 

“They tell us at one moment they are meeting the pauper 
labor of the world in all the markets of the world after paying the 
freight, and then they tell us the next moment that if we do not 
stand right up under them and hold them up above ground out 
of reach of the pauper labor will get them and eat them up.” 

Hon. Thomas B. Reed, 1894. 

“Here let me meet one other question and let me meet it fairly. 


54 


We are charged with having claimed that the tariff alone will 
raise wages, and we are pointed triumphantly to the fact that the 
wages of France and Germany, protected by a tariff, are lower 
than England, free of all tariff, and to America with a tariff and 
still higher wages. We have never made such a claim in any such 
form. Free traders have set up that claim for us in order to 
triumphantly knock it over. What we do say is that where two 
nations have equal skill and equal appliances and a market of 
nearly equal size, and one of them can hire labor at one-half 
less, nothing but a tariff can maintain the higher wages, and that 
we can prove.” 


FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

Hon. John Sharp Williams, 1903. 

“My friend from Ohio says that with the Republican tariff law 
foreign trade has grown immensely. Oh, my friends, that rises 
above a jest. How foolish and how partisan that is. Under all 
sorts of administrations and under all sorts of tariff laws the for¬ 
eign trade of this country has gone forward, growing by leaps and 
bounds, pari passu with the growth of the country. This country 
at the period he was speaking of as being at one end of his compari¬ 
son had some three millions of population, at another period ten 
millions of population and at another one twenty millions. 

“The other end of his comparison is the present. 

“It has eighty-five million souls now. It has four times the 
amount of territory that it had at the beginning. It had, let us 
say, about three million workers in the fields of industry in the 
40’s. It now has twenty, and yet gentlemen want to claim great 
Republican credit because “our foreign commerce has grown.” 

Hon. Jacob H. Gallinger, 1902. 

“Under the operation of the Dingley Tariff we have become the 
leading export nation of the world, passing Great Britain, with 
her wonderful prestige of centuries. It will be seen that our bal¬ 
ance of trade differs very much now from the years 1893 to 1897. 
In 1893 the balance was against us, and for the five years from 
1893 to 1897, inclusive, the average was only $175,000,000, while 
during the past five years the average has been about $600,000,000, 
making a total favorable balance under the five years of the Ding- 
ley law of $3,000,000,000. 




“We are changing under this trade balance from a debtor 
nation to a creditor nation, if, indeed, we have not already done 


A TAX OX THE CONSUMER. 

Hon. J. S. Williams. 

“If the gentleman will listen until I finish this question and 
answer he will see that my statement is borne out by sworn testi¬ 
mony. (Report of House Committee upon coal prices during coal 
strike). 

“Q. The duty was 67 cents. The price on the last day that the 
duty was imposed on coal was then 67 cents higher a ton than it 
was the day following when the duty was off? 

“A. Anything that was in transit; yes, sir. 

“Q. In other words, if a citizen of Boston desired to use 
Nova Scotia coal he paid 67 cents more a ton on the day before 
duty was removed than he would be called upon to pay the day 
after the duty was removed. 

“A. Yes, sir.” 

Hon. J. H. Gallinger. 

“And I deny the general principle that the consumer pays the 
tax. That is an old Democratic dogma. It has been worn thread¬ 
bare in the campaigns of the past. Let me ask you if we to-day 
put a tariff of a thousand dollars a ton upon steel rails, would 
the price of steel rails to-morrow be a thousand dollars a ton? 
Nonsense! Such a price would increase production almost with¬ 
out limit until the price of rails would fall far below the tariff. 
I deny the proposition that the tariff is added to the cost and lias 
to be paid by the consumer. Why, Mr. Chairman, protection is 
based upon the principle that it will enlarge the area of produc¬ 
tion. If we enlarge the area of production and multiply the 
product the price falls and the consumer is benefited.” 

AID TO MANUFACTURING. 


Hon. J\ S. Williams, 1903. 

“Protection, Mr. Chairman, is a system of taxation whereby 
many are robbed in order that a few men may be liothoused by 
legislation into artificial prosperity. As a supplementary defini¬ 
tion, protection is a system of taxation whereby capital and labor 


50 


are deflected trom naturally profitable pursuits and enterprises 
into the channels of naturally unprofitable pursuits and enter¬ 
prises. And as a corollary the method whereby they are deflected 
is by the enactment of laws forcing 1 the consumer to pay to the 
artificially hothoused enterprises a higher price than with a free 
commerce the consumer would have to pay.” 


Hon. Thomas B. Reed, 1894. 

# 

“There is still another argument which I desire to present out 
of the large number yet unused. What has made England rich ? 
It is the immense profits which come of converting raw materials 
into manufactured goods. She is a huge workshop doing the most 
profitable work of the world; changing material to finished prod¬ 
uct. So long as she can persuade the rest of the world to engage 
in the work which is the least profitable and leave her the most 
enriching, she can well be content.” 


EFFECT UPON INDUSTRIES. 

In illustrating the effects of the protective tariff upon pro¬ 
tected industries and the price of the product, the steel, refined 
sugar and raw sugar industries are taken as typical of the three 
classes of protected industries, the powerful exporting, the home 
market and the supported. 


TARIFF STATISTICS.—GOVERNMENT REVENUE. 


Customs Receipts. Per cent, of total. Nat 1 Income. 


1892. .. 

.. .$177,452,964.15 

1893. .. 

... 203,355,016.73 

1894... 

... 131,818,530.62 

1895. .. 

... 152,158,617.45 

1896. .. 

... 160,021,751.67 

1897... 

... 176,554,126.65 

1898. .. 

.. . 149,575,062.35 

1899. .. 

.. . 206,128,481.75 

1900... 

.. . 233,164,871.16 

1901... 

.. . 238,585,455.99 

1902... 

.. . 254,444,708.19 

1903. .. 

.. . 284,479,581.81 


50 

$354,937,784.24 

53 

385,819,628.78 

44 

297,722,019.25 

48 

313,390,075.11 

49 

326,976,200.38 

51 

347,721,905.16 

37 

405,321,335.20 

40 

515,960,620.18 

41 

567,240,851.80 

40 

587,685,337.53 

45 

562,478,233.21 


57 














RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES. 


Excess of receipts. 

1892 . $9,914,454.00 McKinley Tariff (Republican). 

1893 . 2,341,674.00 

Excess of expenditures. 

1894 .$69,803,261.00 Wilson-Gorman Tariff (Democratic). 

1895. ..... 42,805,223.00 

1896 . 25,203,246.00 

1897 . 18,052,254.00 Dingley Tariff (Republican). 

1898 . 38,047,247.00 Spanish War. 

1899 . 89,111,559.67 

Excess of receipts. 

1900 .$79,527,060.18 

1901 . 77,717,984.38 

1902 . 91,287,376.00 


INTERNAL COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES. 

Annual value amounts to $20,000,000,000 estimated. Twelfth 
Census 1900. 


Agriculture in round numbers.$4,000,000,000 

Manufactures .. .. . 13,000,000,000 

Minerals (mining, etc.). 1,000,000,000 

Forests, fisheries, etc. 2,000,000,000 


TABLE OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS BY DECADES. 



Imports. 

Exports. 

1800... 

. $91,252,768 

$70,971,780 

1810. .. 

. 85.400,000 

66,757,970 

1820... 

. 74.450,000 

69,691,669 

1830... 

. 62,720,956 

71,670,735 

1840... 

. 98,258,706 

123,668,932 

1850. .. 

. 173,509,526 

144,375,726 

1860. .. 

. 353,616,119 

333,576,057 

1870... 

. 435,958,40S 

392,771,768 

1880... 

. 667,954,746 

835,638,658 

1890... 

. 789,310,409 

857,828,684 

1900... 

. 849,941,184 

1,394,483,082 

1903... 

. 1,025,751,538 

1,392,231,637 


58 





























SUGAR CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION. 


Sugar consumed in the United States (1902). 2,566,108 tons 

Sugar produced in the United States (1902). 310,000 “ 

Sugar imported into the United States (1903). 2,108,204 “ 

Value of sugar imported (1903).$72,000,000 

Value of sugar exported (1903). 2,550,000 


RAW SUGAR. 

Raw sugar is grown almost entirely by independent producers. 
Their economic situation is such that Americans do not produce 
one-seventh of the sugar consumed in the United States. The 
big refiners operate to push down the price of raw sugar so that its 
high price is not the result of trust manipulations, but in spite of 
it. The industry is directly dependent on the tariff. If the tariff 
on raw sugar were removed to-morrow this industry would be 
practically destroyed. 


PRICES. 


Below 75° polarization. 

Dingley duty $0.95 per 100 lbs. 

Average price in Philippines $1.00 per 100 lbs. 

Europe—Beet, $1.34 to $1.52. 

Cane, $1.50 to $1.89. 

Philippine sugar delivered in San Francisco without duty, 
$1.15 per 100 lbs. 

Raw American Sugar (45°) average price, $2.15 per 100 lbs. 


REFINED SUGAR. 

This industry is in the hands of very large interests, but is not 
dominated by a pool. The price of refined sugar is not arbitrarily 
high because it is held down by competition. Arbuckle Bros., the 
National Sugar Re-fining Company and various other independents 
have made arbitrary raising of prices by the American Sugar Re¬ 
fining Company impossible. 

The firms engaged in refining sugar moreover are satisfied 
with the American market. Though the perfection of American 
refining machinery would probably enable them to compete with 


50 







the foreign sugar mills, the high price in America of raw sugar 
prevents this. 


PRICES. 


Centrifugal 96° polarization. 

Dingley duty, $1.95 per 100 lbs. 

Average price in Havana (1904).$2.18 

Average price in London (1904). 2.20 

Average price in New York (1903). 3.62 

Average price in New York (1904). 3.62 


Note.—25 per cent, reduction on Philippine sugar March 8, 
1902; 20 per cent, reduction on Cuban sugar December 27, 1903. 


STEEL AND IRON. 

Extraordinary development has taken place under the protec¬ 
tive tariff to such an extent that in this industry American goods 
are able to compete with foreign in the foreign markets. The 
prices of iron and steel are held by the pools at a point much 
above what the cost of manufacturing plus competitive profits 
would give. 


STEEL AND IRON INDUSTRIES. 



No. of 

Wages and 

Per cent. 

Value of 


Establishments. 

Salaries paid. 

of Product. 

Product. 

1870 

808 

$40,514,981 

15% 

$207,208,696 

1880 

1,005 

55,476,785 

18 

296,557,685 

1890 

719 

95,736,192 

19 

478,687,579 

1900 

725 

134,739,004 

16 

835,759,034 


IRON AND STEEL. 

1903. Imported .$51,600,000 

1903. Exported . 96,600,000 

1890. Imported . 41,680,000 

1890. Exported . 25,500,000 


GO 










DUTIES ON IRON AND STEEL. 


Iron ore . $ 1.00 per ton 

Pig: iron. 4 qq « « 

Charcoal iron. 12.00 “ u 

R. R. iron of all sorts, steel rails, etc. 7.00 “ “ 

Structural iron. 10.00 u u 

Steel Billets. 6 00 u u 

(On $20 per ton valuations). 


STEEL RAILS. 

UNITED STATES MARKETS. 

Market price (since May, 1901) @ $28.00 per ton. 

Rails sold approximately $30,000,000 as against $80,000,000 in 
April, 1903. 


FOREIGN MARKETS. 

American steel rails delivered at Beirut, Syria, 20,000 tons 
@ $ 22.88 per ton. 

American steel rails delivered at Montreal, Canada, 40,000 
tons (q) $21.50 per ton. 

American steel rails for Canada Northern, 25,000 tons @ $ 22.00 
per ton. 

English steel rails, Grand Trunk, Canada, 15,000 @ $23.50 
per ton. 


WAGES. 

The condition of the American workman is shown by 
table (taken from a Bureau of Labor report) and showing the 
average income and cost of living as found by the study of 2,567 
families of typical American laborers. 

The scale of daily wages for the average workingman in Eng¬ 
land (revenue tariff) is less than one dollar and his entire yearly 
income hardly equals the money spent by the family of an average 
American laborer upon food. In Germany and in France (pro¬ 
tective tariff) the average daily wages is less than in England, 
and the cost of living, though proportionately less than in Amer¬ 
ica, is nevertheless in large proportion to the wages of the laborer. 


(31 








COST OF LIVING. 


BULLETIN NO. 49 OF BUREAU OF LABOR. 

Number of families; average size of families; average income 
per family; average expenditures per family for all purposes, and 
average expenditure per family for food during 1901. 

Ex. for all Expense 


Families. 

Size. 

Income. 

purposes. 

for food. 

North Atlantic States. . 

1,415 

5.25 

$834.83 

$778.04 

$338.10 

North Central States.. . 

721 

5.46 

842.60 

785.95 

321.60 

South Atlantic States.. 

219 

5.30 

762.78 

760.62 

298.64 

South Central States.. . 

122 

5.65 

715.46 

690.11 

292.68 

Western States . 

90 

4.69 

891.82 

751.46 

308.53 


2,567 

5.31 

$827.19 

$768.54 

$326.90 


1902. Price of food increased 10.9% over average for ten 
jeais, 1890-1899. Compared with 1896, the year of lowest price 
of food, the increase was 16.1%. This increase in cost of living 
relates to food alone. Food represents 42.54% of the whole family 
expenditures for living. 

During (1902) year of highest prices labor was more regular 
and better paid than in 1896, the year of lowest cost of food. 








LABOR. 


TV hile a distinct Labor party, such as exists in almost every 
European country, has not become in the United States one of the 
great national influences, nevertheless the voting strength of the 
laboring classes and the pronounced differences in opinion con¬ 
cerning their industrial and legal status make the issues connected 
with labor of the greatest national concern. Fourteen millions of 
the people in the United States are directly engaged as laborers 
of one sort or another and their produce amounts to about fifteen 
billion dollars annually, so the importance of their problems to the 
welfare of the entire country can scarcely be overestimated. It is 
not surprising that the interests of this great mass of wage earners 
have been considered and fostered at all times by the political 
powers. 

In 1900 both parties based important planks of their platform 
upon the welfare of the workingman. The Republican High 
Tariff plank reiterates faith in this measure as the preserver of 
American wages. The Immigration Restrictive plank is designed 
to safeguard American labor from foreign low-grade competition. 
The Democratic National platform similarly proposed measures 
of amelioration in the creation of a “Department of Labor” with 
a Cabinet Officer at its head (a project which was carried through 
during the present administration), favored the “arbitration of 
labor disputes” and opposed “government by injunction.” 

Interwoven with the interests of labor in general are the ques¬ 
tions brought up by organized labor. The growth of the unions 
in numbers has been enormous. The American Federation of 
Labor, which had previous to 1899 not more than 600,000 members, 
though existing since 1881, claims to-day to include in all its # 
many brances no fewer than 2,000,000. Outside of the Federation 
proper, there are the Knights of Labor, »t,he Railway Servant 
organizations and multitudes of small local unions. 

Their power has naturally grown with their size. The last 
ten years have seen literally hundreds of industries “unionized” 
to a greater or less degree. The big breweries of New York, for 
instance, employ union men only. All the building trade of Chi- 


63 


cag-o is in the hands of organizations. San Francisco, with a 
Mayor elected from the Musicians’ Union, is practically a union 
city, where pay is higher than anywhere else in the United States. 
A combination exists between unions and dealers against inde¬ 
pendents and non-organization dealers which has driven out of 
San Francisco most of the two latter classes, and which has raised 
the price of goods and services to an exceptionally high point. 

The strike of the Building Trades in New York, with Sam 
Parks at their head, exhibits one of the worst phases of trades 
unionism. The striking power of the union was used by him as 
a weapon for blackmailing contractors and as a means of injuring 
such organizations as his friends were leagued against. New 
York has not yet recovered from the effects of these unwarranted 
strikes. The same state of affairs in San Francisco has resulted 
in a very serious oppression which cannot be broken because the 
government is controlled by labor sympathizers. The Colorado 
strike, which is not yet entirely over, has cost, it is estimated, 
$50,000,000, and has kept idle 35,000 men for six months. The 
dispute hinged upon an eight-hour day law, passed by the 
State, but declared by the Supreme Court to be unconsti¬ 
tutional. Violence on both sides and the killing of “scabs” re¬ 
sulted in a declaration of martial law throughout the mining dis¬ 
trict, which is still in a very unsettled condition. 

An exceedingly important influence upon the status of union 
labor developed out of the President’s intervention in the coal 
strike. In this case a strongly organized group of mine owners 
was fighting the Anthracite Miners’ Union, which the employers 
had not recognized. When the President interfered in the inter¬ 
ests of the public he did recognize the miners as an organization, 
conceding a point withheld by the proprietors. The fact of Execu¬ 
tive interference is itself a precedent that may be of great impor¬ 
tance in subsequent disputes. 

The genera] facts about unions and their influences can be 
briefly stated. They have oppressed, wherever possible, non-union 
men, often illegally. Where they have gotten sufficient 1 power to 
be virtually labor trusts they have shown themselves as tyrranous 
as combinations of capital. But they have rendered invaluable 
service to American labor by helping to get for it a just share of 
the products of industry. 

Two problems arise out of the conditions to-day how to 

protect labor from capital and how to protect the public, the non¬ 
union man and the capitalist from lawless labor unions. Arbitra¬ 
tion has been long the stock remedy for disputes arising between 


64 


organized labor and capital, but as a general rule this relief 
neglects the, interests of the non-union workman and of the 
general public. Our only National Arbitration Act was passed 
in 1898 as a result of the great railway strike of 1894. It provides 
that at the request of either party, disputes between employers and 
employes engaged in the business of common carriers shall be 
arbitrated. This proceeding is under the auspices of the Com¬ 
missioner of Labor and the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission. The decrees of the arbiters appointed by these men 
is binding and may be enforced in Federal Courts by the equity 
process. This law, however, has not yet stood the test of an actual 
case and its influence extends only to railways, over which the 
Federal Government exercises a constitutional supervision. 

State governments in twenty-three States have passed legisla¬ 
tive provisions for voluntary arbitration. In very few cases, how¬ 
ever, have actual results confirmed the benefits of the system, be¬ 
cause boards of arbitration can, as a rule, neither get the dis* 
putants to arbitrate nor can they enforce decisions. Except in 
a few States, too, the boards cannot command the production of 
books and papers for evidence. In Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, 
Ohio, New York and Massachusetts, where the boards are given 
more power, their work has been better, but as a general thing 
voluntary arbitration has proved a failure. In New York be¬ 
tween 1894 and 1900, 157 cases were tried and mediation led to 
definite results in but 76. In Ohio from 1893 to 1899, 35 cases 
were settled. In Massachusetts 53 cases out of 232 tried were con¬ 
cluded. The small number of cases tried and the still smaller 
number satisfactorily settled have shown this remedy to be no ade¬ 
quate solution for the labor problem. Voluntary arbitration is 
unsatisfactory chiefly because neither party will submit its case 
to the court. Compulsory arbitration is not favored by either 
workmen or employers and barred out. At present, therefore, 
there is no practical way by which disputes between employer and 
employe can be settled without strike or concessions on one side. 

The problem of defending property and lives from lawless 
“union sympathizers” is partially solved by the injunction, though 
the extensive use of this weapon may be an unwarranted extension 
of judicial power. Injunction is defined as an order of court com¬ 
manding certain persons to refrain from doing, or to do some 
particular thing. The frequent employment of this privilege by 
Federal Courts has aroused a large amount of opposition from 
the laboring class, as well as from the rigid adherents to States 
rights. By it a man, if he disobeys the injunction, can be pun¬ 
ished for contempt of court without trial. Generally an injunc- 
% 

65 


/ 


tion is issued restraining particular persons, but in the great rail¬ 
road strike a “blanket injunction” was granted, which covered 
thousands of men. 

In the Debs case, the Supreme Court decided that Federal 
Courts had the authority to issue injunctions, even against un¬ 
named persons, to protect interstate commerce. It is doubtful if 
legislation to abolish or alter this privilege would be constitu¬ 
tional. There are, however, certain abuses to wdiich the privilege 
is inherently liable. There is no right of appeal from a con¬ 
demnation for contempt of Court and injunctions can be granted 
without due consideration of facts and without one side having 
had an opportunity to be heard. The criminal nature of this 
action should entitle a man to trial by jury which is here absent. 
But in the general lawlessness attending strikes, injunction is 
often imperatively necessary to preserve order. 

In general, it may be said that to prevent the abuse of power 
by labor organizations no further legislation can be anywhere 
nearly as necessary as the prompt and rigid enforcement of 
already existing laws. 

The consensus of decisions of the Courts regarding the rights 
of employers and employes is as follows: Strike, concerted action 
in refusing to continue in employment is legal. Combination to 
procure discharge of certain men, such as union men refusing to 
work with non-union employes, though generally practiced, is de¬ 
clared illegal in a majority of decisions. Picketing is in general 
legal, unless threats or intimidations are used. Persuading men to 
leave work is not in itself illegal. Boycott is almost universally 
a criminal offense, if used by a combination of laborers, although 
the “trade boycott” of one employer by a combination of em¬ 
ployers is legal. Incorporations of unions is provided for in many 
States as well as by a Federal enactment. There is, however, no 
general desire among union men to incorporate, as this entails the 
right to sue and be sued as a body. Unions may be enjoined as a 
body even if they are not incorporated. Employers’ discrimination 
against union men is in general legal. Injunction. It is at the 
discretion of the Court whether an injunction shall be issued or 
not. A general injunction against unnamed men is legal by de¬ 
cision of the Supreme Court. 


66 


PANAMA. 


CHRONOLOGY. 

January 9, 1902. Official offer made by officers of New Pan¬ 
ama Canal Company to sell all property and rights to the United 
States for $40,000,000. 

June 28, 1902. Spooner Act. President authorized to enter 
into treaty with Colombia, or if not able to negotiate one in a 
reasonable time with Colombia, then to make one with Nicaragua. 

June 22, 1903. The Hay-Herran Treaty between the United 
States and Colombia for the construction of the Panama Canal by 
the United States was signed at Washington. 

March IT, 1903. Treaty ratified in United States Senate by 
73 to 12, 5 Senators not voting. 

August IT, 1903. Colombian Senate failed to ratify Panama 
Canal Treaty. 

September 14, 1903. Colombian Senate approved a bill 

authorizing its Government to negotiate a new treaty. 

October 1G, 1903. Official warning received by United States 
Government that revolution was certain in the department of 
Panama. 

October 19, 1903. United States ship Boston sent to 

Nicaragua. 

October 30, 1903. U. S. S. Nashville ordered to Colon. 

November 2, 1903. Orders: U. S. Government to Naval 
Commander. 

“Maintain free and uninterrupted transit. If interruption 
is threatened by armed force, occupy the line of railroad. Prevent 
landing of any armed force with hostile intent, either Govern¬ 
ment or insurgent, at any point within fifty miles of Panama. 
Government force reported approaching the Isthmus in vessels. 
Prevent their landing if, in your judgment, the landing would 
precipitate a conflict.” 

November 3, 1903. Revolution. Colombian Generals Tobal 
and Amays taken prisoners by Panamanians. 

November 4, 1903. Colombian gunboat began to shell Pan¬ 
ama. Notified by Consul General to stop firing. 


67 



November 6, 1903. Independence of the Republic of Panama 
recognized by United States. 

November 8, 1903. Colombia protests to United States 
Senate. 

November 9, 1903. Commission appointed by Panama to 
negotiate Canal Treaty with the United States. Republic of 
Panama recognized by France. 

November 13, 1903. Mr. Bunau-Varilla received as official 
Minister Plenipotentiary from Republic of Panama. 

November 15, 1903. Panama Commission arrived in New 
York. 

November 18, 1903. Hay-Bunau-Varilla Canal Treaty signed 
at Washington. 

November 19, 1903. Colombian Commission tries to get 
Panama to return to her allegiance. The Republic refuses. 

December 2, 1903. Canal Treaty with United States un¬ 
amended is ratified by Panama. 

December 5, 1903. General Rafael Reyes, Envoy from Colom¬ 
bia, received by President Roosevelt. 

December 7, 1903. President’s message, Hay-Varilla Treaty 
submitted to Senate. 

December 9, 1903. Senator Morgan attacks treaty. Senator 
Hoar demands information. 

December 12, 1903. Mr. William I. Buchanan appointed 
Plenipotentiary to Panama. 

January 4, 1904. Special Panama message of President 
Roosevelt laid before Congress. 

January 7, 1904. Secretary of State Hay refuses to reopen 
question with General Reyes, Colombian Envoy. 

February 23, 1904. The United States Senate ratified the 
Panama Canal Treaty unamended by a vote of 66 to 14. The 
Bacon amendment, providing for a recompense to Colombia, was 
rejected by a vote of 24 to 49. 

April 27, 1904. The conference report on the Panama Canal 
Zone Bill was passed by the Senate. 

May 4, 1904. The possessions of the New Panama Company 
were formally transferred to the United States. 

TREATY OF 1846. 

Right of Way. 

“That the right of way or transit across the Isthmus of Pan¬ 
ama. upon any mode of communication that now exists, or may be 
hereafter constructed, shall be free and open to the Government 
and citizens of the United States.” 


6S 


I 


Treaty Obligations. 

“The United States guarantee, positively and efficaciously to 
New Granada, by the present stipulation the perfect neutrality 

of the before mentioned Isthmus.the United States also 

guarantee in the same manner the rights of sovereignty and prop¬ 
erty which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory.” 

SPOONER ACT. 

“That the President of the United States is hereby authorized 
to acquire.at a cost not exceeding forty millions of dol¬ 

lars, the rights, privileges, etc., owned by the New Panama Canal 
Company.on the Isthmus of Panama. 

2 . That the President is hereby authorized to acquire from 
the Republic of Colombia for and on behalf of the United States, 
upon such terms as he may deem reasonable, perpetual control of a 
strip of land, the territory of the Republic of Colombia, not less 
than six miles in width, extending from the Carribean Sea to the 
Pacific Ocean. 

3. That should the President be unable to obtain for the 
United States a satisfactory title to the property of the New 
Panama Canal Company and the control of the necessary territory 

of the Republic of Colombia.within a reasonable time and 

upon reasonable terms, then the President having first obtained 

.control by treaty of the necessary territory from Costa 

Rica and Nicaragua, shall.cause to be excavated and con¬ 

structed a ship canal ...'.. by what is commonly known as the 
Nicaragua route.” 

NEW PANAMA CANAL COMPANY’S TITLE. 

Concession of 1878 Acquired by Old Canal Company. 

“Article 5. The canal shall be finished and placed at the serv¬ 
ice of the public within the subsequent twelve years after the 
formation of the company, which will undertake its construction, 
but the executive power is authorized to grant a further maximum 
term of six years in the case of encountering vis major, and if 
after one-third of the canal is built the company should find it 
impossible to conclude the work in the said twelve years. 

“Article 20.according to the National Constitution, 

the difficulties which may arise between the contracting parties 
shall be submitted to the decision of the Federal Supreme Court. 

“Article 21. The grantees or those who in the future may 
succeed them in their rights, may transfer these rights to other capi¬ 


ta 







talists or financial companies, but it is absolutely prohibited to 
cede or mortgage them under any consideration whatever to any 
nation or foreign government. 

“Article 23. In all cases of decision of nullity (over non-ful¬ 
fillment of various conditions) the public lands.shall 

revert to the possession of the Republic.as well as the 

buildings, materials, works and improvements which the grantees 
may possess along with the canal and its accessories. 

“(Signed) “Lucian N. B. Wyse. 

“Eustorgio Solgar.” 

The Old Panama Company went into liquidation in 1888. 
Extension of Concession to the Liquidating Company December 

26, 1890. 

“Article 1 . The Government grants to the liquidator of the 
Compagnie Universelle du canal de Panama an extension of ten 
years within which the canal is to be finished and put in public 
operation. 

“The new company.shall resume the work of excava¬ 

tion not later than February 28, 1893.” 

Right of Sale. 

The Department of the Seine, France, 1893, declared that the 
New Panama Company had the right to sell the property to any 
purchaser. 

Extension of Concession April 4, 1893. 

“Article 1. The extension of ten years granted in article first 

of the Contract of 1890 .shall remain in force. 

except the second article, which is modified by the extension until 
October 31, 1894. 

“The term of ten years shall begin to run from the date of 
the formal organization of the new company.” 

New Panama Canal Company, October 20 , 1894, was definitely 
formal organization of the new company. 

Extension of Concession April 26, 1900. 

•“The President of the Republic.decrees, 

Section 1 . 

“Article 2 . The said extension (six years) will begin to run 
on the 31st day of October, 1904. Consequently the canal must 
be completed and put into public use on the 31st day of October, 
19i0, at the latest. 

Section 11. 

“Article 2 . In consideration of the extension.the new 

company.will pay.the sum of five million of 


70 










francs.ninety days from the date on which this contract 

shall have been approved by the most Excellent President of the 
Republic. Manuel A. Sansclements.” 

Note.—-Though not passed upon by the Colombian Congress, 
this grant was not technically illegal, for by the Colombian Con¬ 
stitution the executive holds what is virtually dictatorial power. 

LEGAL STATUS OF PANAMA. 

The sovereign state of Panama subscribed to the Liberal Con¬ 
stitution of 1863, by which the Federation of the United States of 
Colombia was formed. When in 1885 a coup d’etat put the Con¬ 
servatives in power and a new constitution was framed proclaiming 
the abolition of the Federal form of government, centralizing the 
power in an executive who at any time might suspend the consti¬ 
tution, and re-establishing the Roman Catholic Church, Panama did 
not subscribe. It was conquered and reduced to a mere dependency 
ruled by a governor appointed by the President. Panama may now 
be accurately said to have “resumed its independence.” 

FACTS SUPPORTING THE COURSE TAKEN BY THE 

GOVERNMENT. 

1 . By the clause in the treaty of 1846 which provided that 
the Government and citizens of the UAited States should always 
have light of way across the Isthmus of Panama, we could be held 
to possess the right, after securing the title from the Canal Com¬ 
pany, to dig the canal without any further negotiation with 
Colombia. 

2. The provision in the Panama Company’s Concession, that 
the rights and franchises of the canal should be sold under no 
circumstances, to any foreign government, do not apply to the 
United States owing to the prior rights granted her by the treaty 
of 1846. 

3. The action of Colombia in refusing to ratify the Hay- 
Herran treaty was entirely unjustified unless its provisions were 
manifestly unfair. That this was not the case is shown by the 
liberal provisions of the treaty. The doctrine that Colombia’s tech¬ 
nical sovereignty over the Isthmus did not justify her refusal of 
the Hay-Herran is embodied in the following official utterances by 
various Secretaries of State. 

President’s Message, December 7, 1903: 

Secretary Cass in 1858 officially stated the position of this 

Government as follows: 

“While the rights of sovereignty of the State occupying this 


71 



/ 


region should always be respected, we shall expect that these rights 
be exercised in a spirit befitting the occasion and the wants and 
circumstances that have arisen. Sovereignty has its duties as well 
as its rights, and none of these local governments would be per¬ 
mitted in a spirit of Eastern isolation, to close the gates of inter¬ 
course on the great highways of the world, and justify the act by 
the pretension that these avenues of trade and travel belong to 
them and that they choose to shut them, or, what is almost equiva¬ 
lent to incumber them with such unjust relations as would prevent 
their general use.” 

4. The clause guaranteeing New Granada’s sovereignty cannot 
be held as binding us further than to defend its territory from 
foreign invasion. 

President’s Message, December 7, 1903: 

“Seven years later, in 1865, Mr. Seward, in different commu¬ 
nications, took the following position: 

“The United States have taken and will take no interest in 
any question of internal revolution in the State of Panama, or any 
State of the United States of Colombia, but will maintain a per¬ 
fect neutrality in connection with such domestic altercations. The 
United States will, nevertheless, hold themselves ready to protect 
the transit trade across the Isthmus against invasion of either 
domestic or foreign disturbers of the peace of the State of Panama. 

. Neither the text nor the spirit of the stipulation in that 

article of which the United States engages an obligation on this 
Government to comply with the requisition (of the President of 
the United States of Colombia for a force to protect the Isthmus 
of Panama from a body of insurgents of that country). The pur¬ 
pose of the stipulation was to guarantee the isthmus against seizure 
or invasion by a foreign power only.” 

“Attorney General Speed, under date of November 7, 1865, ad¬ 
vised Secretary Seward as follows: 

“From this treaty it can not be supposed that New Granada 
invited the United States to become a party to the intestine trou¬ 
bles of that government, nor did the United States become bound 
to take sides in the domestic broils of New Granada. The United 
States did guarantee New Granada in the sovereignty and prop¬ 
erty over the territory. This was as against other and foreign gov¬ 
ernments.” 

5. The Panama Revolution was justified in the flagrant mis- 
government and oppression of the people of Panama by the cen¬ 
tral government, in the manifest unfitness of Colombia to govern 
it as shown by the 53 riots, revolutions and rebellions on the Isth¬ 
mus since the treaty with New Granada; in the fact that any 



allegiance which Panama might owe by virtue of its oath to the 
Colombian Constitution, was legally absolved when the Govern¬ 
ment of Colombia was assumed by a military dictator in 1885. 

C. For our intervention on the Isthmus there are a number 
of precedents. 

President’s Message: 

“In 1856, in 1860, in 1873, in 1885, in 1901 and again in 1902, 
sailors and marines from United States warships were forced to 
protect life and property, and to see that the transit across the 
isthmus was kept open.” 

7. Our prompt recognition of the de facto Government of 
Panama is amply supported by precedent and its subsequent re¬ 
cognition by a great number of other nations has shown the ap¬ 
proval of the civilized world. Length of time between revolution 
and recognition matters nothing. What counts is the probable 
solidity of the Government. Though long informed of prospec¬ 
tive revolutions, Colombia took no steps and all Colombian troops 
left the Isthmus, so that the Republic of Panama promised to be 
permanent. 

8. Recognition was necessary to avoid foreign complications. 
The extension of the Canal Concessions until 1910 was granted by 
the Colombian executive on his own responsibility without legis¬ 
lative sanction. An act declaring this extention illegal would 
have left Colombia in possession of the canal and would have been 
certain to produce complications with France. The French Min¬ 
istry was severely criticised at the time for not sending warships 
to Panama when the revolution occurred. 

9. Recognition, finally, was in the interests of civilization and 
humanity. The canal would benefit commerce of the world, and 
would put an end to the annual revolutions on the isthmus. 

To have turned to Nicaragua, while it would fulfill one con¬ 
struction of the letter of the Spooner Act, would be a violation 
entirely of the spirit of that act, since it would have given to the 
United States what is conceded to be an inferior canal at greater 
cost. 

FACTS UNFAVORABLE TO COURSE OF THE GOVERN¬ 
MENT. 

1. The power to ratify or to reject a treaty is an inherent 

right of a sovereign State. The clause in the Hay-Herran treaty 
granting to the United States a 99-year lease of the Canal Strip, 
renewable for periods of 99 years at the sole option of the United 
States, provides for an alienation of territory absolutely forbidden 
by the Colombian Constitution. The money payment proposed 


73 


was considered too small. There had been a series of notes, claimed 
by the Colombians to amount to threats, sent to the Colombian 
Senate by Secretary Hay and Minister Beaupre. Hence a failure 
to ratify the treaty may be held natural as well as legal. 

2. Under the treaty of 1846 the United States agree to ‘‘guar¬ 
antee the sovereignty and property which New Granada has and 
possesses over the said territory.” Several times the United States 
intervened in the interests of Colombia, showing that the United 
States construed the treaty to extend to domestic insurrection as 
well as to foreign invasion. 

President’s Message, December 7, 1903: 

“Had it not been for the exercise by the United States of the 
police power in her interest her connection with the isthmus would 
have been sundered long ago.” 

3. In previous revolutions Colombia has always had the right 
to transport troops by the Panama Railway. The prohibition 
against Colombian’s sending troops or transports to within 50 miles 
of the canal strip was unprecedented. It amounted to forbidding 
the reconquest of a seceding State, and might so be considered as a 
legitimate casus belli. 

4. The recognition of a seceding State after only three days 
had elapsed is almost unprecedented. The independence of the 
Seceding Confederate States was never recognized, nor was that 
of the Boers. The independence of the United States was recog¬ 
nized by France and Holland in 1778, after four years’ fighting. 
Their act was construed by England as an unjustified interference 
undertaken for the purpose of encouraging the rebellion, and war 
was declared by her upon both the recognizing nations. 

5. Colombia’s claim for greater compensation was not un¬ 
reasonable. In the preliminary negotiations in 1902, Minister 
Concha claimed that Secretary Hay’s offer was not high enough, 
and declared himself willing to submit the question of price to the 
Hague Tribunal. By the terms of the original Canal Company 
Concession all the work done on the canal as well as machinery, 
houses, etc., should revert to Colombia if the work were not fin¬ 
ished by 1896, or if the terms of the contract, as determined by the 
Federal Court of Colombia were not complied with. Three exten¬ 
sions of time have been granted to the Canal Company, as well as 
the privilege of liquidation, although the whole property might now 
be legally the property of Colombia. Colombia, therefore, has 
acted most generously in regard to the canal. 

6. The revolution was fomented by parties interested in the 
New Panama Company in New York and Paris and had for its 
inception and methods very little moral justification. 


74 


FOREIGN RELATIONS. 


In 1898 the commercial activity of the four preceding years 
culminated in a billion dollar export trade for the year. The ac¬ 
quisition as a result of the Spanish War, of possession over seas 
created a precedent for active supervision in the affairs of the 
American Continent outside our own borders. These previously 
unknown conditions furnished the opportunity to break down the 
barriers of old traditions and to set the United States in the new 
place and into the changed relation to the rest of the world which 
it now holds. Our foreign relations as well as our national poli¬ 
tics have of late years been strongly influenced by commercial in¬ 
terests. This industrial pressure was the principal cause, as the 
Spanish War was the occasion for the abrupt change from the tra¬ 
dition of isolation and non-interference which marked our early 
history, to the doctrine of active participation in the affairs of the 
whole world—from the idea that stamped Washington’s farewell 
address and that was embodied in the Monroe Doctrine, to the ideal 
that dominated Secretary Hay’s latest note to the Powers. 

First, American trade interests in China and the possession 
of Asiatic colonies, led directly to participation in the march to 
Peking and to subsequent interest in the Chinese idemnity. Amer¬ 
ican diplomacy, by virtue of commercial interest and the large part 
played by our troops in the relief of the Legations, had much to do 
with the arrangement and probably most to do with the final set¬ 
tlement. The insistence on the “open door” for foreign trade in 
China involving enforced free trade for that unwilling nation was 
pre-eminently an American measure. 

Close upon this expanding policy in the Far East came a 
stronger agitation for the Panama Canal. As a trade route for 
the American Continent and as a military measure for the protec¬ 
tion of our distant possessions, the necessity for such a waterway 
became more and more apparent. After a protracted discussion in 
regard to the route, negotiations with the Canal Company and 
with Colombia were authorized. The refusal of Colombia to ac¬ 
cept our offer and the subsequent rebellion of Panama and its 
recognition as a Republic, mark a still further step in the altering 


American attitude. United States troops will garrison permanently 
the strip of land across the isthmus. 

The “policing” of San Domingo as a measure for the safety 
of American lives and property is another indication of the 
changed trend of foreign policy. 

Secretary Hay’s note to the Powers indicating the advisability 
of localizing the present Russian-Japanese War to the territory 
directly in dispute, is too recent to require comment. The right 
of the United States to request this and her unchallenged insist¬ 
ence upon Chinese neutrality, are in themselves recognitions by 
the other Powers of America’s entrance as an important participant 
into world politics. 


inniGRATION. 


Hie fact that last year’s immigration totalled 857,046, carries 
no adequate idea of the importance of this influx to our shores. 
Figures alone furnish but a poor index to the vital problem involved 
in the assimilation, and the education of so huge and so hetero¬ 
geneous a mass of humanity. The question included the economic 
factor of distributing and utilizing half a million unskilled labor¬ 
ers each year. It concerns the social influence of a dozen radically 
different races, foreign to us and to each other in custom, alien in 
thought, antagonistic often in religion. 

Yet the mere numbers are themselves startling. Last year’s 
quota of seven-eights of a million immigrants is more than 1 per 
cent, of the total population of the United States. With Italians 
of the last two years one could fill a city the size of Washington 
and still have 40,000 odd to spare. One could repopulate Pittsburg 
from the past three years’ influx of Russians and have two or three 
thousand left over. The Jewish dream of restored nationality could 
be realized at once were our Hebrew immigration directed to one 
place. The Jewish immigrants that have entered America in three 
years would make a city as large as Providence or Indianapolis. 
The political importance of such figures is shown in the fact that 
McKinley’s plurality of 1896 is outnumbered by the males of vot¬ 
ing age from the immigration of the last three years. 

In addition to greatly increased numbers the immigrants of 
to-day are remarkable for entirely altered quality. The change 
in the race and the character of imported aliens in the last twenty 
years has been revolutionary. In 1880 the foreigners of Teutonic 
stock, Germans, British and Scandinavians outnumbered ten times 
those from South and East Europe. But by 1903 the relative 
numbers of the latter had become three times as great as those of 
the former. 

The quality of the individual immigrants has likewise changed. 
While laborers have always been in the overwhelming majority, 
there was in the earlier immigrations a much higher percentage 
of educated, skilled and intelligent workers. The class which is 
now able to pour into this country on account of low rates was 


77 


then to a great extent debarred by the expense of making the voy¬ 
age. The immigrants of earlier days represented the lower middle 
class of the progressive European nations; those of to-day are the 
lowest peasant class of the least advanced nations of Europe. 

The distribution of immigrants has always been inadequate. 
Those States in which a larger white population is needed are 
hardly touched by the movement. The Southern States do not feel 
it at all. Georgia has a foreign born population of but six-tenths 
of 1 per cent.; South Carolina, four-tenths of 1 per cent.; North 
Carolina, two-tenths of 1 percent. The Western agricultural States, 
from which come the great demand for men to develop their un¬ 
touched resources, get almost none of the present arrivals. There 
are whole States filled by Teutonic immigrants, the Swedes and 
Norwegians in Minnesota, for instance, but the Italians and Rus¬ 
sians of to-day have not the money or the energy to go in any large 
numbers to the Western country districts. While the earlier im¬ 
migrants went largely onto the farms, those of to-day are found in 
the highest proportions in the city slums. 

The effect upon the labor market, of each succeeding wave of 
immigration has been to drive out the former workers in the un¬ 
skilled occupations. The Irish, for instance, drove out native labor. 
In the East at least Italians have largely supplanted Irish. The 
English and Welsh miners in the coal regions have similarly been 
supplanted by Poles and Hungarians. French Canadians in the 
Massachusetts mills have largely replaced Americans and Greeks 
and Italians are doing the same in Connecticut. This constant 
pressure from below explains the great opposition of organized 
labor to unrestricted immigration. They consider it illogical to 
raise up a protection barrier to preserve American labor from the 
competition of pauper labor in Europe, and then let in an unre¬ 
stricted number of those same paupers to compete with them upon 
American soil. 

A further fact is that.the great influx of late years has low¬ 
ered the wages and consequently the standard of living in those 
occupations, which the foreigners principally adopt. This is mark¬ 
edly so in the factories of Massachusetts. In Connecticut there 
has come within the author’s knowledge a case of a factory dis¬ 
carding within ten years 150 Americans at $2 to $2.50 a day and 
employing 275 Greeks and Hungarians at 75 cents to $1 a day. 
Though American foremen have been kept, all the factory hands 
have been gradually discharged. Most of them have left the town 
and their homes. The foreign workmen are boarded by the 
company and sleep in a great shed furnished with bunks along the 
side. The Bureau of Labor report states that lately on the Erie 


Canal work, out of 15,000 employees, practically all were Italians, 
and only 1,000 were citizens. Their wages were 12 1-2 cents per 
hour, about 30 per cent, less than the current wages elsewhere. 

The capacity of the modern order of immigrant for good citi¬ 
zenship is questionable. They are, generally speaking, the lowest 
classes from countries where the people have never been able to 
rule themselves. Their illiteracy is about three times as great as 
the average in the United States, and their ignorance corresponds 
to it. As a rule their average number of inebriates is somewhat less 
than with former classes, but in stealing and crimes of violence 
their average is much higher. The fact that so few of them are 
citizens is, of course, partly due to the shortness of the time they 
have been in the country, but there is also a genuine disinclina¬ 
tion among them to assume the duties of citizenship. The He¬ 
brews from Russia and Poland particularly supply an appalling 
number of paupers and diseased. They herd together in congested 
bodies in the slums, so that the influence of the general community 
is little felt and the public school system is crippled. 

IMMIGRATION SINCE 1820. 


1821-1830 

1831-1840 

1841-1850 

1851-1860 


143,439 1861-1870. 2,314,824 

599,125 1871-1880. 2,812,191 

1,713,251 1881-1890. 5,246,613 

2,298,214 1891-1900. 3,687,564 


Total .19„115,221 

CHANGE OF CHARACTER OF IMMIGRATION. 


From South & From North & 
East Europe. West Europe. 


I860 .08% 76% 

1870 .2 72 

1880 .8 64 

1890 .34 58 

1900 .67 25 

1903 .67 21 


RATIO OF SOUTHERN AND EASTERN EUROPE TO 
NORTHERN AND WESTERN EUROPE. 


1860 

1900 

1903 


70 


1 to 100 
2'A to 1 ' 
3 to 1 





















IMMIGRATION OF TYPICAL YEARS BY COUNTRIES. 


1860. 1870. 1880. 1890. 1900. 1903. 

Germany . 43,946 118,225 84,638 92,427 18,507 40,086 

Scandinavia . 1,153 50,742 65,657 50,338 31,151 77,647 

Gt. Britain. 15,380 74,489 73,267 69,710 12,517 33,637 

Ireland . 40,547 56,996 71,603 53,024 35,730 35,310 


N. & W Europe. .101,026 280,452 295,167 265,499 97,905 186,680 

Austria Hungary. 4,452 17,267 c39,000 114,847 206,011 

Russia . 156 1,130 7,191 c41,000 90,787 136,093 

Italy . 920 2,893 12,354 52,003 100,135 230,622 


S. & E. Europe... 1,076 8,448 36,812 132,003 305,769 572,726 

Total Immgr’n. 133,143 387,203 457,257 455,302 448,572 857,046 

EFFECT UPON THE LABOR MARKET. 

Proportion of men to women: 

^ Men. Women. 

1890 .281,853 173,449 

1900 .304,148 144,424 

1903 .613,146 243,900 

Occupation.—LTnskilled Laborers: 

1890. 1900. 1903. 

139,365 163,508 242,679 

Farm Laborers: 

29,296 31,949 80,526 

Skilled Laborers: 

44,540 61,443 79,768 

Miscellaneous: 

211,756 249,796 412,879 

No Occupation, including women and children: 

195,770 134,941 153,159 

QUALIFICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP. 

Ratio to 

Over 14 Yrs. Pop. of that Nation. 
Illiterates. Prisons, 1890. Alien. 

Germany . 4.4% .77% 8.3% 

Scandinavia .7 .46 10.1 

Gt. Britain . 1.0 1.10 12.8 

Ireland . 3.5 .93 10.1 

Austria-Hungary .31.7 1.2 48.0 

Russia .30.5 1.3 35.2 

Italy .47.7 2.0 53.0 

80 




































ILLITERATE FOREIGN BORN IN CITIES. 


Showing the 

concentration 

in cities of 

nationalities having 

largest percentage 

of illiteracy. 

Census of 1900. 



Nos. in 

Nos. in 

In 

Illiterates. 

Country 

N. Y. State. 

N. Y.City 

City. 

Immigrts. 

Austria-Hungary 

... .132,006 

117,998 

90% 

31.7% 

Poland . 

_ 69,755 

52,873 

47 

33.3 

Italy . 

... .182.248 

145,433 

80 

47.7 

Russia . 


155,201 

94 

30.5 

Germany . 

... .480,101 

322,386 

67 

4.4 

L T . Kingdom .... 

. .. .602,404 

365,460 

66 

2.2 

Sweden . 

... . 42,708 

28,320 

65 

.7 


Illinois. 

Chicago. 



Austro-Hungary 

. .. . 63,516 

53,123 

83% 

31.7% 

Poland . 

_ 67,949 

59,713 

88 

33.3 

Italy . 

. .. . 23,523 

16,008 

70 

47.7 

Russia . 

... . 28,707 

24,178 

81 

30.5 

Germany . 

_322,590 

171,072 

53 

4.4 

U. Kingdom .... 

. .. .203,338 

115,385 

56 

4.4 

Sweden . 

_99,147 

48,836 

49 

rr 

A 


FOREIGN BORN POPULATION IN CITIES. 


1880 . 

N. Y. City. 
. 478,670 

Chicago. 

204,859 

Boston. 

114,796 

1890 . 

39.66% 
. 639,943 

40.71% 

450,666 

31.64% 

158,172 

1900 . 

42.23% 
.1,270,080 

40.97% 

587,112 

35.31% 

197,129 


36.95% 

34.51% 

35.15% 


81 


























I 


NEGROES. 


The recent disfranchisement of the blacks of Maryland, the 
large number of race riots in the North as well as in the. South, 
the growing agitation for a reduction of the Congressional rep¬ 
resentation of those States that have reduced, or eliminated the 
Negro vote, make this question of National concern. 

It is essentially one to be decided upon facts, not by un¬ 
reasoning race prejudice on the one hand, nor by unreasoning 
sentiment in favor of race equality upon the other. The first fac¬ 
tor is the XIV. and XV. amendments of the Constitution, by 
which five million slaves were suddenly invested with a power 
which they were wholly unable rightfully to use. The “carpet bag¬ 
ging” days of reconstruction are to the South to-day a dark shadow 
warning them away from negro domination. Another factor that 
must be fully appreciated, to take a just view, is that of the 8.8 
million negroes in the United States, 7.7 are found in the thir¬ 
teen Southern States. Though it is only in two States that Ne¬ 
groes actually outnumber the whites, yet in practically every one 
of these States the number of negroes is sufficient in every election 
to hold the balance of power should the solid vote of the whites 
ever divide. 

Although for the whole United States the ratio of colored to 
whites is smaller each census, locally this ratio is in many cases 
increasing. The apparent decrease of the negro percentage is fur¬ 
thermore fully accounted for by the enormous immigration that 
every year swell the numbers of white people. In increase by birth 
alone (exclusive of immigration) the negro ratio is as great, if not 
greater than the native white. In Mississippi the proportion of 
blacks to whites has increased from 136 to 100 in 1890, to 141 to 
100 in 1900. Florida, Arkansas and Alabama show likewise an in¬ 
crease in the relative numbers of the colored race. 

A further source of danger from negroes is shown by the in¬ 
creased percentage of crime and illegitimacy in certain districts, 
where the ratio has become disproportionately higher almost every 
year. 

But the negroes have progressed also. In 1865 there were cast 
out upon the world five million men, owning, many of them, not 


82 


even the clothes they wore; ignorant, untrained generally for any 
hut the coarse work of the held, debased by generations of servi¬ 
tude. \ et in the forty years since the war they have advanced 
materially. Their property, in 1865, amounted to almost nothing. 
I o-day it is worth approximately $400,000,000. As to their right 
to the ballot, it is represented that the sole opportunity of the race 
for education and advancement depends upon its possession and 

the ideas of the whites who would close to negroes the avenue of 
education, can be met only with this weapon of the ballot. The 
pronounced decrease in negro illiteracy throughout the South, 
however, discounts this doctrine. If the whites have deprived the 
negroes of the ballot the increased percentage of those who can 
read and write shows that they have not closed the door of educa¬ 
tion. 

Such is the situation. The South has met it rightly or wrong¬ 
ly by various measures that eliminate to a large measure the negro 
vote. In some States this has been accomplished by the educational 
test supplemented in many cases by a clause allowing the fran¬ 
chise to illiterate “descendants of voters in 1867in others by a 
poll tax; in others by a property test. Out of 1.7 million negro 
voters in thirteen Southern States, it is estimated that over three- 
fourths are thus disfranchised. 

There remains the constitutional aspect. By the XIV. amend¬ 
ment it was provided that for the male citizens over 21 disfran¬ 
chised, representation in Congress must be reduced. Ratified by 23 
Northern States, and not acted upon by California, this amend¬ 
ment was finally carried through by the enforced ratification of the 
ten Southern States. Though in a test case in Alabama, the Sup- 
preme Court has upheld the right of a State to make educational 
tests with the “grandfather’s” clause, it is doubted by some that it 
would uphold the present representation of a large non-voting pop¬ 
ulation, if the issue were presented squarely. Others think it cer¬ 
tain that, because representation is a right of the population, not 
alone of those who may vote, the Court would sustain the right of 
a State so disfranchising certain of its inhabitants, to full repre¬ 
sentation. 


NEGRO POPULATION. 

Number of negroes and whites since 1870, showing increased 
percentage of white population (with immigration.) 

Census Years. Total Pop. Whites. Negroes. 

1790 3,929,214 80.7% 19.3% 

1900 5,308,483 81.1 18.9 


S3 


Census Years. 

Total Pop. 

Whites. 

Negroes. 

1810 

7,239,881 

81.0 

19.0 

1820 

9,638,453 

81.6 

18.4 

1830 

12,866,020 

81.9 

18.1 

1840 

17,069,453 

83.2 

16.8 

1850 

23,191,876 

84.3 

15.7 

1860 

31,443,321 

85.6 

14.1 

1870 

38,558,371 

87.1 

12.7 

1880 

50,155,783 

86.5 

13.1 

1890 

63,069,756 

87.5 

11.9 

1900 

76,303,387 

87.8 

11.6 


NEGRO POPULATION IN 13 SOUTHERN STATES IN 1900. 

Negroes per 



Negro. 

White. 

1,000 Pop, 

Alabama . 

.. . 827,307 

1,001,152 

452 

Arkansas. 

.. . 366,866 

944,580 

279 

Florida . 

.. . 230,730 

297,333 

436 

Georgia . 

.. . 1,034,814 

1,181,294 

467 

Kentucky . 

.. . 284,706 

1,862,309 

132 

Louisiana . 

.. .. 650,804 

729,612 x 

471 

Maryland. 

.. . 235,064 

952,424 

190 

Mississippi . 

.. . 907,630 

641,200 

580 

North Carolina. ... 

.. . 624,469 

1,263,603 

328 

South Carolina. ... 

.. . 782,321 

552,807 

580 

Tennessee . 

.. . 480,243 

1,540,186 

237 

Texas . 

.. . 620,722 

2,426,669 

203 

Virginia . 

.. . 660,722 

1,192,855 

355 


7,706,398 

14,586,024 

• 


PROPORTION OF RACES IN 13 SOUTHERN STATES. 


White. Negro. 

22,310,883 14,586,024 7,706,398 

Negroes in whole United States. 8,840,789 

Negroes in 13 Southern States. 7,706,398 


Negro per cent, of total population 34.5 per cent. 

DECREASE OF NEGRO ILLITERACY IN SOUTHERN 

STATES. 

1880. 1890. 1900. 

White. Negro. White. Negro. White. Negro. 


Maryland .7.8% 59.6% 5.9% 50.1% 4.1% 35.1% 

Virginia .18.5 73.7 14.0 57.2 11.1 44.6 


84 





















1880. 


White. Negro. 


No. Carolina . . 

.. .31.7 

77.4 

So. Carolina . . 

.. .22.4 

78.5 

Georgia . 

.. .23.2 

81.6 

Florida . 

.. .20.7 

70.7 

Tennessee .... 

... .27.8 

71.7 

Kentucky .... 

... .22.8 

70.4 

Alabama . 

.. .25.0 

80.6 

Mississippi . .. 

... .16.6 

75.2 

Louisiana . 

.. .19.8 

79.1 

Texas . 

.. .13.9 

75.4 

Arkansas . 

... .25.5' 

75.0 


1890. 1900. 


White. 

Negro. 

White. 

Negro 

23.1 

60.1 

19,5 

47.6 

18.1 

64.1 

13.6 

52.8 

16.5 

67.3 

11.9 

52.8 

11.3 

50.5 

8.6 

38.4 

18.0 

54.2 

14.2 

41.6 

16.1 

55.9 

12.8 

40.1 

18.4 

69.1 

14.8 

57.4 

11.9 

60.8 

8.0 

49.1 

20.3 

72.1 

17.3 

61.1 

8.3 

52.5 

6.1 

38.2 

16.6 

53.6 

11.6 

43.0 


ILLITERATE NEGROES TEN YEARS AND OVER. 


Total. 

Illiterate. 


6,422,305 

44.2% 

1900 

5,328,972 

57.1 

1890 

4,601,207 

70.0 

1880 


CRIMINALITY, ETC., AMONG NEGROES, 1890. 

Total Pop. Prisoners. Paupers. Insane. 


White. 87.8% 69% 86% 94% 

Negro . 11.6 29 9 6 


INCREASE OE NEGRO CRIMINALITY IN PENNSYL¬ 
VANIA. 


Negroes Negro 

in State. Prisoners. 

1880 .. 12% 

1890 • • IT 

1900 2.5% 20 

1901 2.5 21 


Pennsylvania is taken as a typical State because the prison re¬ 
turns in that State are most thorough. 

NEGROES OF VOTING AGE AND FRANCHISE LIMITA¬ 
TIONS. 


Legislation Limiting 

Negro Vote. State. 

No legislative test. Georgia . . 

Education. Mississippi 

Education, property, veterans descendant. Alabama . 


Negroes 
over 21. 

223,073 
197,936 
. 181,471 


85 

















Legislation Limiting Negroes 

Negro Vote. State. over 21. 

Education or property test. S. Carolina. .. 152,860 

Education except veterans. Virginia . 146,122 

Education or property and vet. descend’ts. Louisiana .... 147,384 
Education or descended from voter in ’67. N. Carolina. .. 127,114 

Poll tax. Texas . 136,875 

Ballot act necessitates education. Tennessee .... 112,236 

No legislative test. Arkansas. 87,157 

No test. Kentucky .... 74,728 

Grandfather clause. Maryland .... 60,406 

Education law necessitates education. Florida. 61,417 

Negroes of voting age in 13 Southern -- 

States. Total.1,708,779 


CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 

Article I. Section 3. Representatives and direct taxes shall 
be apportioned among the several States which may be included 
within this Union, according to their respective members. 

Article XIV. Section 2. Representatives shall be appor¬ 
tioned among the several States according to their respective num¬ 
bers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, ex¬ 
cluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any 

election is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, 
being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, 

or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or 
other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced 
in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall 
bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age 
in such State. 

Article XV. Section 1. The right of the citizens of the United 
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States 
or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of 
servitude. 

RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

XIII. The emancipation amendment was ratified by 31 of 
the 36 States; rejected by Delaware and Kentucky, not acted on 
by Texas; conditionally ratified by Alabama and Mississippi. Pro¬ 
claimed December 18, 1865. 

XIV. Reconstruction amendment was ratified by 23 North¬ 
ern States; rejected by Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and 10 
Southern States, and not acted on by California. The 10 South- 


86 










era States subsequently ratified under pressure. Procaimed July 
28, 1868. 

XV. Negro citizenship amendment was not acted on by Ten¬ 
nessee, was rejected by California, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, 
New Jersey and Oregon, ratified by the remaining 30 States. New 
York rescinded its ratification January 5, 1870. Proclaimed 
March 30, 1870. 


/ 


87 


PHILIPPINES. 


Though the occupation of the Philippine Islands is no longer 
so bitterly condemned as it was in 1900 when the Democratic 
platform declared that Imperialism was the paramount issue, the 
principles involved still mark a vital dividing line in American 
politics. 

When the Treaty of Paris was signed December 10, 1898, 
ceding to the United States the Philippine Islands and providing 
for the payment of $20,000,000 to Spain, the American Army was 
in Manila and Emilio Aguinaldo, forbidden to enter the city by 
the Americans, was outside with a large force of Filipinos. The 
collision between his men and the Americans soon after occurred 
and started the two years of guerilla warfare, which did not end 

until Aguinaldo was finally captured in March, 1901. During this 

period Major-General Otis was the Civil Executive as well as the 
Military Commander in the Philippines. Under his rule martial 
law was relaxed in the districts around Manila, and a Supreme 
Court composed of Filipinos and Americans instituted, antici¬ 
pating in some degree the work to be accomplished by the Com¬ 
mission. 

On July 4, 1901, Governor Taft, as Chairman of the Philip¬ 
pine Commission, began the establishment of Civil Government 
throughout the Islands. His first proclamations stated definitely 
that it was the intention of the Government not to give up its 

sovereignty and not to compromise with men in arms against it, 

but that it proposed to give to the Filipinos such self-government 
as they should show themselves fitted to receive. Following this 
clear announcement of the position of the Government the Com¬ 
mission began its great tour through the Islands establishing, after 
long consultations with the inhabitants, courts and town govern¬ 
ments in each “pueblo.” 

One year later, July 4, 1902, a proclamation of general am¬ 
nesty from the President signalized the institution of the “Law of 
Civil Government” to supersede the “Instructions” under which 
civil government had been inaugurated. This fundamental in¬ 
strument of government, modeled after our own Constitution, pro- 

8S 


i 


vicles for the same separation of the legislative, judicial and 
executive powers with the sole exception that the Philippine Com¬ 
mission remains still a law making a legislative as well as the 
highest executive body. On the basis of population, as given by 
the census, a Legislature is to be summoned in 1906 to meet and 
form with the Commission the Philippine Congress. The “Law of 
Civil Government” confirms the Supreme Court already existing 
as the highest judicial body and provides in detail for lesser courts 
to supplement its work. Like our own, finally, the Philippine Con¬ 
stitution embodies a bill of rights. 

Of the administrative measures put into effect by the Philip¬ 
pine Commission the most important of all has been the Tariff 
Act, by which duties of from 20 per cent, to 30 per cent, ad volorum 
are levied upon imports and duties averaging 3 1-3 per cent, upon 
the leading exports—hemp, rice, sugar, copra and tobacco. Un¬ 
like the protective Dingley tariff, whose average rate of 45 per 
cent, is measurably higher, the rates of the Philippine tariff are 
arranged primarily with a view to furnishing a steady income to 
the Insular Government. This revenue tariff supplies, in the form 
of customs receipts, about four-fifths of the entire insular reve¬ 
nues, which last year amounted to $15,326,125. To this total 
should be added the $3,000,000 granted by Congress “for the relief 
of distress in the Islands.” A 25 per cent, reduction on Dingley 
rates for Philippine produce entering the United States is the only 
measure for free trade so far passed, though a further reduction 
has been vigorously advocated in Congress. The duties collected 
in the United States upon Philippine products, amounting in the 
first eight months of 1903 to $225,443, are turned over to the Phil¬ 
ippine treasury for the benefit of the Islands. 

The establishment of the gold standard is another measure of 
far-reaching importance. The gold peso, worth one-half of the 
United States dollar, is the unit of value. The coinage of subsid¬ 
iary silver, to the value of $75,000,000, is authorized in addition 
to the gold currency. In return for silver coins deposited in the 
Island Treasury, the Treasurer is authorized to issue “silver certi¬ 
ficates.” Paper notes secured by coin in the Treasury are thus 
issued for the convenience of the public, redeemable at any time. 
Ten million pesos of silver certificates have been engraved and 
printed under the provisions of this Coinage Act. 

Civil Service, established at the very beginning of our rule 
in the Islands, has since been rigidly adhered to, and has been ex¬ 
tended even to school teachers. Indeed, outside of the Commission 
and half a dozen of the higher officials there is not a man in the 
Government employ who is not under Civil Service rules., Cai- 


so 


\ 


pet-bagging’’ lias not cursed the Philippine administration prob¬ 
lem. 

The latest insular difficulty has been recently well settled— 
the problem of the Friar lands. On December 22, 1903, contracts 
were signed by which all the agricultural holdings of the religious 
orders, amounting to 400,000 acres, were transferred to the Philip¬ 
pine Government for the sum of $7,239,000 and an end put to a 
century old tyranny of ecclesiastical landlordism. 

The Philippine census is a further Government measure. It 
has been already taken and the deductions are being made. A 
rough calculation numbers the civilized inhabitants at 6,975,000 
and the savage tribemen at 615,000, a total of 7,590,000. 

That the general prosperity of the Islands has greatly in¬ 
creased under American rule is incontestable. In 1903 there was 
for the first time in history a balance of trade in their favor. The 
volume of trade is double what it was in Spanish times, and with 
the approaching introduction of railroads gives promise of still 
greater advance. 

The government of the Islands, indeed, has been so excellent 
that any misgivings as to the Philippine issue must rest upon dif¬ 
ferent theories concerning future policy rather than upon criticism 
of the present. The different attitudes in regard to the Philip¬ 
pines are raised by the possibility of their admittance as States. 
It is asserted by many that to hold colonies over seas which are 
never to become integral parts of the Union is contrary to Ameri¬ 
can institutions and the American theory of government. Their 
objections are intensified by the necessity of a large army and an 
increased navy to defend and hold these insular possessions. 

The Republican party favors the retention of the Islands, 
leaving the problems of their ultimate destiny to be settled by 
future developments. They point out that the government of the 
Philippines is model; that their material prosperity is increasing 
rapidly, and that the opportunity given to Filipinos to advance 
in civilization is one that could have come only through American 
dominance. The recent speech of Mr. Root in which he said that 
the aim of administration is to bring the Philippines ultimately 
into the same relation as Cuba, marks the approach to a policy 
acceptable to a larger proportion of Americans. 

/ 

GENERAL COMMERCE. 

Table shows improvement under American rule. 


Average last 4 years peaceful Spanish rule.$35,578,987 

Commerce in 1903. 66,093,662 

Balance of trade in favor of Islands 1903. 150,000 


90 





VALUE OF EXPORTS. 


Hemp. 

Sugar. 

Tobacco. 

1899.$6,666,886 

$2,333,851 

$2,212,762 

1900. 11,398,946 

3,022,161 

2,182,022 

1901. 14,453,110 

2,293,063 

2,217,728 

1902. 15,841,316 

2,761,432 

1,001,656 

1903. 21,701,575 

3,955,568 

4,473,029 

VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM AND IMPORTS TO 

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Countries. 

Exports. 

Imports. 

United States. 

.$13,863,059 

$4^108,044 

England . 

. 8,799,329 

4,903,270 

Spain . 

757,500 

2,621,196 

Hong’ Kong. 

. 7,303,234 

1,574,463 

Japan . 

. 1,759,366 

701,347 

France. 

. 3,684,116 

1,182,901 

British East Indies. 

994,400 

2,237,382 

China . 

649,502 

4,717,617 

French East Indies. 

109,317 

5,629,693 

Germany . 

306,664 

1,998,922 

French China. 

93,353 

1,505,558 


















NAVY AND 


ARMY. 


NAVY. 

A distinctive policy of the present administration has been the 
passage of acts providing for a new Navy, so strong that it will, 
if the full programme is carried through, put us second among 
the great naval powers. No less than 35 war vessels are now being 
constructed. The new programme will give us 24 battleships as 
against four possessed during the Spanish War. 

The cost of this comprehensive plan is what has aroused the 
strongest opposition not only among the Democrats, but in Re¬ 
publican ranks. Upon the ships already contracted for, the Gov¬ 
ernment owes some $93,000,000. The annual Navy expenditures 
are $82,000,000 as against $55,000,000 in 1900, and give promise of 
being largely increased in the next few years. 


ARMY. 

With the Army the efforts of the present administration have 
been directed towards “reorganization.” 

The most criticized of the actions of the Executive in the 
line of this policy has been the promotion of certain officers with¬ 
out regard for length of service. It is generally felt that in the 
cases that have recently come up the services performed were not 
sufficient to warrant their promotion over so many older men. 
Chief of these was the case of Major-General Leonard Wood, 
whose appointment to this rank during a constructive recess of 
Congress has been recently confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 
45 to 16. General Wood’s services in Cuba were, according to the 
testimony of Secretary Root, invaluable. The committee investi¬ 
gating the charges against General Wood exonerated him. It must 
also be remembered that while President McKinley carried Wood 
over the heads of some hundreds of officers, President Roosevelt 
has simply moved him up. It is an undoubted fact, however, that 
in army circles his last promotion is regarded as unwarranted and 
has created much bitter feeling. The advancement of Albert L. 
Mills to be Colonel, though he was skipped over some 42 officers, 
is less criticized. His appointment has likewise been confirmed. 


Although this particular attempt at reform—promotion by 
merit instead of by seniority—has excited great opposition, the 
purely administration measure, the creation of a “General Staff 
Corps” has been accepted without violent criticism. The imme¬ 
diate object of this newly organized body is to furnish a link be¬ 
tween the civil head of the Army, in the person of the Executive 
and his Secretary, and the military head, the newly created chief 
of staff, which will lessen the friction that has been the rule in the 
past. The old post of General in Chief has been now abolished, 
General Miles retired, and the “General Staff Corps” of 42 mem¬ 
bers, headed by Lieutenant-General Samuel B. Young, instituted. 
A second function of this body is to supervise the work of the 
Army, to make recommendations and in general take charge of 
all the various works dealing with its efficiency. Finally the 
Corps serves as a highly trained advisory board for the President 
and the Secretary of War, giving them invaluable aid in the set¬ 
tlement of purely military questions. 

The duties of General Staff Corps, as given by the act creating 
it, are as follows: 

Section 2. That the duties of the General Staff Corps shall 
be to prepare plans for the National defence and for the mobiliza¬ 
tion of the military operations; to render professional aid and 
assistance to the Secretary of War and to general officers and other 
superior commanders, and to act as their agents in informing and 
co-ordinating the action of all the different officers who are subject, 
under the terms of this Act, to the supervision of the Chief of 
Staff; and to perform such other military duties not otherwise 
assigned by law as may be from time to time prescribed by the 
President. 

The Army organization proper has undergone no radical 
change since the last part of President McKinley’s administra¬ 
tion when the limit of the standing Army was changed by Act 
of Congress from 25,000 to 100,000 men. 

EXPENDITURES. 


Year. Army. Navy. 

1884 .- $39,429,603 '$17,292,601 

1886 . 34,324,153 13*907,888 

1888 . 38,522,436 16,926,438 

1890 . 44,582,838 22,006,206 

1892 . 46,895,456 29,174,139 

1894 . 54,567,930 31,701,294 

1896 . 50,830,921 27,147,732 


93 









Year. Army. Navy. 

1898 . 91,992,000 58,823,985 

1899 . 229,841,254 63,942,104 

1900 . 134,774,768 55,953,078 

1901 . 144,615,697 60,506,978 

1902 . 112,272,216 67,803,128 

1903 . 118,619,520 82,618,034 


STRENGTH OF REGULAR ARMY OCTOBER 15, 1903. 




Enlisted 


Branch of service. • 

Officers. 

men. 

Total. 

General officers and staff organizations. 

880 

2,968 

3,848 

Cavalry . 

731 

11,448 

12,179 

Artillery Corps. 

631 

15,839 

16,470 

Infantry . 

1,439 

23,115 

24,554 

Recruits & miscellaneous detachments. 

.... 

2,130 

2,130 

Total . 

3,681 

55,500 

59,181 


DISTRIBUTION OF REGULAR ARMY. 


Station. 

Officers. 

Enlisted 

men. 

Total. 

United States. 

. 2,764 

39,068 

41,832 

Philippine Islands. 

. 843 

14,667 

15,510 

Cuba . 

. 24 

695 

719 

Porto Rico. 

. 8 

204 

212 

Hawaiian Islands.. 

. 9 

188 

197 

China. 

. 4 

147 

151 

Alaska .. 

. 29 

531 

500 

Total . 

. 3,681 

55,500 

59,181 


STRENGTH 

OF MILITIA. 

Enlisted 



Officers. 

men. 

Aggre. 

General and staff. 

. 1,360 

• • • 

1,360 

Cavalry, 7 regiments. 

. 350 

4,740 

5,090 

Artillery . 

. 498 

6,754 

7,252 

Infantry, 138 regiments. 

. 6,782 

93,314 

100,096 

Engineers, 17 companies. 

. 63 

1,011 

1,074 

Signal Corps. 

. 52 

680 

732 

Hospital Corps. 

. 15 

923 

938 


9,120 

107,422 

116,542 


94 




































NAVY INCREASE. 


Including* those under construc- 
\ essels in Navy at end of tion and authorized 

Spanish War. by Congress. 

First-class battleships. 4 24 

Sec’d-class battleships. 1 1 

Cruisers—Armored ... 2 10 

Protected .13 23 

Unprotected . 3 4 

Gunboats . 15 23 

Torpedo boats.10 36 

Monitors . 11—5 obselete. 15—5 obselete. 

Rams . 1 

Destroyers . 16 

Submarines. ' 8 

Total . 60 160 


COMPARATIVE NAVAL EXPENDITURES OF POWERS. 


1900 1901 1902 1903 

Great Britain . .130,000,000 146,600,000 155,000,000 155,850,000 

France . 74,590,000 73,108,000 62,419,000 68,000,000 

Germany . 42,000,000 52,000,000 54,259,500 56,000,000 

United States.. 55,953,078 60,506,978 67,803,128 82,613,034 


U5 














flERCHANT HARINE. 


In every Republican National platform for the last twenty 
years has appeared a plank favoring legislative action for the pur¬ 
pose of re-establishing in some way our merchant marine. The 
defeat of the principal measures proposed has been due rather to 
a dislike of the particular legislation advocated than to lack of 
appreciation of our backwardness in this most important of call¬ 
ings. 

Less than 9 per cent, of our total amount of foreign freight 
is carried at present in American vessels. Yet shortly after the 
Revolution our own ships were carrying 75 per cent, of it and in 
1826 as much as 90 per cent. The period of decline began with 
the introduction of iron and steel ships, supplanting the wooden 
vessels in which we excelled. England, by better equipped yards 
and better facilities for handling metal, secured an advantage at 
that period which has kept her ever since at the head of shipbuild¬ 
ing nations. The final blow to our shipping interests was dealt 
by the Civil War. In 1846 we were handling 79 per cent, of our 
own foreign commerce. During the four years of the war we lost 
no less than 42 per cent, and since then our percentage of the 
carrying trade has dwindled to the present insignificant figure. 

The value of an extensive shipping, if a country is to consoli¬ 
date political and trade relations with distant dependencies, is in¬ 
calculable. It is furthermore an economic loss to pay as we do 
now $100,000,000 annually to foreign freighters for transportation 
that American ships should be competent to supply. The posses¬ 
sion of a large merchant fleet, furthermore, keeps always available 
a source from which to draw trained officers and men in case of 
war. It furnishes likewise an adequate number of ships which 
can be used to supplement the regular Navy as auxiliary cruisers, 
supply vessels, transports, etc. 

The vital matter is how to secure these benefits without taxing 
the people more than the gains to the Government warrant. It is 
obvious that a certain amount of taxation would be justified to 
secure the military advantages named. But whether such a sub¬ 
sidy as is at present under consideration in Committee would 


96 


attain the end sought, yet not pay for them too dearly, is suf¬ 
ficiently doubtful to have defeated all the general subsidy bills 
that have heretofore been proposed. The three “special subsidies” 
we have granted at various times accomplished nothing. As only 
3 per cent, of Great Britain’s navigation lines are even slightly 
subsidized, her commercial supremacy cannot be ascribed to this 
sort of legislation. French subsidies have been long in force at 
large expense to the taxpayer, and with small good to any but a 
few steamship companies. Germany’s subsidy has probably had 
little to do with her shipbuilding and shipping growth. Japan’s 
has had positive results, but at large expense. Furthermore, the 
granting of such a bonus means, as a rule, favor to special lines 
and not to the mass of ship owners. 

The other proposed remedy, discriminating duties, has the 
intrinsic advantage of benefiting ship owners as a whole with a 
fair degree of equality. There are two ways in which this dis¬ 
crimination could be effected, either of which would benefit Ameri¬ 
can shipping interests. One way is to add certain percentage to 
the tariff upon all goods brought to this country in foreign bot¬ 
toms, letting in goods carried by American ships at present rates. 
This, however, involves an appreciable increase in tariff rates which 
is hardly likely to meet with favor. 

The other method of discrimination is to refund 10 per cent, 
or even the full 20 per cent, provided by the Dingley Act, of the 
duties upon imports brought in American vessels. This plan would 
stimulate American shipping without the imposition of a further 
tax. It would be, however, removing so much “protection” from 
the American manufacturer to give to the American shipper. It 
is quite as just to aid the latter as the former, and the military 
advantage of establishing a merchant marine would recommend 
the transfer. 


MERCANTILE MARINE. 

Table showing decline. By permission W. W. Bates. 
PROPORTION OF U. S. VESSELS. 


Year. 

Imports. 

Exports. 

Tons. 

1789 

17.5% 

30% 

123,893 

1810 

93 

90 

981,019 

War'1812. 

1814 

58 

51 

674,633 

1825 

95.2 

89.2 

665,409 

1859 

63.7 

69.9 

2,321,674 


) 

I 


97 



Civil War. 


Year. 

Imports. 

Exports. 

Tons. 


1865 

:29.9% 

26.1 % 

1,518,354 


1873 

27 

25.7 

1,378,533 


1883 

20.7 

13.4 

1,269,681 


1892 

17.66 

8.11 

988,719 

• 

1900 

12.98 

7.07 

816,795 


1901 

11.99 

6.12 

879,595 


1902 

12.06 

6.64 

873,235 


1903 

12.88 

7.14 

879.264 


CARRYING TRADE 

IN PHILIPPINES 1903. 


Showing how foreign bottoms carry the largest part of 

goods. 


Imports 


Exports 

Ship- 

Country. 

into P. I. 

Shipping. 

from P. I. 

ping. 

United States... 

. ... . 11.7% 

2.1% 

35.0% 

1.7% 

Great Britain... 

. 14.7 

40,0 

22.1 

76.2 

Germany . 

. 5.7 

23.5 

.7 

5.4 

Spain . 

. 7.4 

19.4 

1.9 

6.3 

Norway . 

. 0.01 

8.6 

• • 

2.9 


UNITED STATES GOODS IN FOREIGN BOTTOMS. 


Vessels carrying imports from United States into Philippine 
Islands: English, 70 per cent.; German, 5 per cent.; others, 15 
per cent.; American, 10 per cent. 







PENSIONS. 


Pensions form still the largest single expenditure of the Gov¬ 
ernment. The $138,000,000 devoted to the old soldiers exceeds 
the Navy expenditure by $56,000,000, the Army bill by $20,000,000. 
A million pensioners on the rolls, and this tremendous sum ex¬ 
pended annually for their support, are extraordinary in the fiscal 
history of nations. 

How long this high level of pension expenditure is to last has 
long been a question. There are enjoying pensions to-day a num¬ 
ber half as large as the total number of men who fought on the 
Union side in the Civil War, and no pronounced decline in the 
amount of the pension expenditure has yet set in. The lowest the 
list has been during recent years was 134.5 million dollars in 1892. 
The highest, 159.3 million dollars, was reached in the following 
year. In that year 40 per cent, of the Government expenditures 
was for pensions. Our annual pension expenditures exceed the 
cost of Germany’s standing army. If it is considered as a part of 
army expenditure, we spend for our small army $100,000,000 more 
than Germany or France. 

The number of Civil War veterans drawing pensions in 1903 
was 703,456, with about 250,000 widows, only 39,000 less than in 

1889. It is calculated by the Bureau of Pensions that 200,000 
veterans are not upon their rolls. The average pension is $133 
per annum, running up as high as $416, but more than half the 
pensions are for $10 a month or less. 

The first two general Pension Acts, those of 1882 and 1873, 
provide for the pensioning of any officer or soldier disabled in the 
war, or the nearest relation dependent on a deceased veteran. The 
act of 1890 grants a pension for 90 days’ service to any disabled 
veteran, whether the disability is the result of war service or not. 
By the act of 1892 nurses unable to support themselves are granted 
pensions. The act of 1900 extends slightly the scope of the act of 

1890. As the laws at present stand, the applicant must prove the 
disability for which the pension is claimed, and show 90 days’ 
service. The widow must show her legal marriage, prior to the 
passage of the act of 1890 to a disabled soldier. Dependent 


mothers and children must show similar proofs of their connection 
with a deceased veteran. 

An order promulgated by the Commissioner of Pensions March 
16, 1904, has, by a slight modification in the interpretation of the 
law, produced a great change in its administration. By the 
previous interpretation age was considered as only one evidence 
of infirmity and only one of the factors determining disability. 
By the present ruling age is considered in itself a disability with¬ 
out the need of further proofs. So that disability is now held 
proven if the veteran shows that he has reached the age of 62 years. 
The result of this will be to allow a large number of men to obtain 
pensions who have been unwilling in the past to submit to exami¬ 
nation or have been unable to go to the places of examination. It 
will eliminate, however, a large part of the expense entailed by 
the medical examinations of applicants, of which 200,000 were held 
last year. So that although this is the equivalent of a service pen¬ 
sion, the expense to the Government will not be in all probability 
very much raised. 


OLD AGE DISABILITY. 

Text of order issued March 16, 1904, by Commissioner Ware: 

“Ordered: In the adjudication of pension claims under said 
act of June 27, 1390, as amended, it shall be taken and considered 
as an evidential fact, if the contrary does not appear, and if all 
other legal requirements are properly met, that when a claimant has 
passed the age of sixty-two years he is disabled one-half in ability 
to perform manual labor, and is entitled to be rated at $6 a month; 
after sixty-five years, at $8 a month; after sixty-eight years, at 
$10 a month, and after seventy, at $12 a month. Allowance at 
higher rate, not exceeding $12 a month, will continue to be made 
as heretofore, where disabilities other than age show a condition 
of inability to perform manual labor. This order shall take effect 
April 13, 1904, and shall not he deemed retroactive. The former 
rules of the office, fixing the ininimum and maximum at 65 years 
and 75 years, respectively, are hereby modified as above.” 

Pensions on basis of age previous to above order. 

(From Report of Commissioner of Pensions, 1903.) 

“The age of claimant is an important factor in fixing the rate 
of pension under the act of June 27, 1890. 

“A claimant, who has reached the age of 75 years, is allowed 
the maximum rate for senility alone, even where there are no spe¬ 
cial pensionable disabilities. A claimant who has attained the 
age of 65 years is allowed at least the minimum rate, unless he 


100 


appears to have unusual vigor and ability for the performance of 
manual labor in one of that age. The effect of partial senility is 
considered with other infirmities, where there are such, and the 
aggregate incapacity rated.” 


PENSION STATISTICS. 
Pensioners of different wars in 1903: 



Daughters. 

Widows. 

Revolution . 

. 2 

2 


Veterans. 

Widows. 

War of 1812. 

. 1 

1,115 

Mexican War . 

. 5,964 

7,910 

Indian Wars . 

Civil War: 

. 1,565 

3,169 

Act 1861 . 

.268,281 

89,711 

Act 1890 . 

.443,721 

162,241 

Spanish War. 

. 9,210 

3,662 


Pensions compared to other Government expenditures. Re¬ 
port of Secretary of Treasury, 1903: 


Civil and Miscell 

War . 

Navy . 

Indians . 

Pensions . 

Interest . 

Postal Service . .. 


$124,944,289.74 

118,619,520.15 

82,618,034.18 

12,935,168.08 

138,425,646.07 

28,556,348.82 

134,224,443.24 


Total 


$640,323,450.28 


Pension expenditure in typical years: 


Year. 

Invalids. 

Widows, Etc. 

Amount. 

1861 . 

. 4,337 

4,299 

$1,072,461 

1871 . 

. 93,394 

114,101 

33,277,383 

1881 . 

.164,110 

104,720 

50,626,538 

1891 . 

.536,281 

139,339 

118,548,959 

1901 . 

.747,999 

249,736 

139,582,231 

1903 . 

.728,732 

267.813 

138,890,088 



101 
























METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT, 

AND HIS DUTIES. 


FROM CONSTITUTION. 


EXECUTIVE POWER—IN WHOM VESTED. 

Section 1. The Executive Power shall be vested in a President 
of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during 
the term of four years, and together with the Vice-President, chosen 
for the same term, be elected as follows: 

ERECTORS. 

Sec. 2. Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legis¬ 
lature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole 
number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may 
be entitled in Congress; but no Senator or Representative or £>erson 
holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be 
appointed an elector. 

PROCEEDINGS OF ELECTORS AND HOUSE, OF REPRE¬ 
SENTATIVES. 

Sec. 3. The electors shall meet in their respective States and 
vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an 
inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make 
a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for 
each, which list they shall sign and certify and transmit, sealed, to 
the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the 
President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the 
presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all cer¬ 
tificates, and the voters shall then be counted. The person having 
the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number 


102 




be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if 
there be more than one who have such a majority, and have an 
equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall im¬ 
mediately choose, by ballot, one of them for President; and if no 
person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the 
said House shall, in like manner, choose the President. But in 
choosing the President the vote shall be taken by States, the rep¬ 
resentation from each State having one vote. A quorum, for this 
purpose, shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of 
the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to 
a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the 
person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall 
be the Vice-President. But if there should remain two or more 
who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot 
the Vice-President. 


TIME OF CHOOSING ETECTORS. 

Sec. 4. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the 
electors and the day on which they shall give their votes, which day 
shall be the same throughout the United States. 


QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT. 

Sec. 5. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen 
of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitu¬ 
tion, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any 
person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age 
of thirty-five years and been fourteen years a resident of the United 
States. 


PROVISION FOR DISABILITY. 

Sec. 6. In case of the removal of the President from office, or 
of his death, resignation, or disability to discharge the powers and 
duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-Presi¬ 
dent, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, 
death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice- 
President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and 
such officer shall act accordingly until the disability shall be re¬ 
moved or a President elected. 


103 


SALARY. 


Sec. 7. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his 
services a compensation, which shall neither he increased nor 
diminish during the period for which he shall have been elected, 
and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument 
from the United States or any of them. 


OATH. 

Sec. 8. Before he enters on the execution of his office he shall 
take the following oath or affirmation: 

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute 
the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of 
my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the 
United States.” 

ARTICLE H. 

DUTIES. 

Section 1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the 
Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the sev¬ 
eral States when called into the actual service of the United States; 
he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in 
each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the 
duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant 
reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, ex¬ 
cept in cases of impeachment. 


MAY MAKE TREATIES, APPOINT OFFICIALS, ETC. 

Sec. 2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and con¬ 
sent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the 
Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint Ambassadors, 

other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court 

/ 

and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are 
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by 
law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such 
inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the 
courts of law, or in the heads of departments. 


104 


MAY FILL VACANCIES. 


Sec. 3. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies 
that may happen during the recess of the Senate by granting com¬ 
missions, which shall expire at the end of their next session. 


MAY CONVENE CONGRESS AND MAKE RECOMMENDA¬ 
TIONS. 

Sec. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress in¬ 
formation of the state of the Union, and recommend to their con¬ 
sideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; 
he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either 
of them, and in case of disagreement between them with respect to 
the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such a time as 
he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other pub¬ 
lic ministers; he shall take care that the laws be carefully executed, 
and shall commission all the officers of the United States. 


MAY BE IMPEACHED. 

Sec. 4. The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of 
the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for 
and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and mis¬ 
demeanors. 


105 




TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Page 

Men of the Hour. 

Grover Cleveland. 3 

Theodore Roosevelt. 6 

Alton Brooks Parker. 9 

Elihu Root. 11 

William Jennings Bryan. 14 

✓ 

William Howard Taft. 16 

William Randolph Hearst. 18 

Parties and What They Stand For. 

Presidents and Their Parties. 20 

Republican Platform 1900. 21 

Democratic Platform 1900. 27 

State Statistics. 34 

Issues of the Campaign. 

Trusts. 38 

Tariff. 49 

Labor. 63 

Panama. 67 

Foreign Relations. 75 

Immigration. 77 

Negroes. 82 

Philippines. 88 

Navy and Army. 92 

Merchant Marine. 96 

Pensions. 99 

Method of Electing Presidents. ..'•. 102 


107 

























JUN 16 1904 























